From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar  1 01:51:26 2017
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:51:26 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Comment period extended for
 the Initial Report
In-Reply-To: <2020c974-d97d-cf14-d967-d1b0c40c0981@cdt.org>
References: <A923D016-6E19-4F01-B479-6B5A6611A495@icann.org>
	<84592196-f35e-3292-bab9-0eaa1d710a2a@kathykleiman.com>
	<2020c974-d97d-cf14-d967-d1b0c40c0981@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=t50WJnLsXVXB48LqekfbJojifoEc=cnjNfij47vVLCA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

as we discussed in a previous thread about public comments
https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-February/000142.html, we saw
the one about IGO-INGO as important and the deadline was the 1st March, the
extension is definitely welcome and we cannot miss this opportunity. It
would be helpful if we can get some draft by Copenhagen meeting while
taking the opportunity there to review the document.
as indicated in the announcement, there will be an update from the WG
during GNSO working session on Sunday and we can send questions.  shall we
compile some?

Best,

Rafik


2017-03-01 6:54 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>:

> Thanks Kathy - this is very helpful - perhaps we can use some of limited
> time together in CPH to craft a response?
>
> Matthew
>
> On 28/02/2017 12:15, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> FYI - extension of 2 weeks on IGO-INGO comments...
>
> Best, Kathy
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Comment period extended for the Initial
> Report
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:34:30 +0000
> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> <mary.wong at icann.org>
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> In view of community requests received for an extension of the public
> comment period for our Initial Report, the Working Group co-chairs have
> agreed to an extension of 2 weeks following the close of the upcoming
> ICANN58 Public Meeting. The comment period will now close on *30 March
> 2017*: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-in
> itial-2017-01-20-en.
>
>
>
> We do not anticipate this extension affecting the current plan to discuss
> our preliminary recommendations, and feedback received so far, with the
> community at ICANN58. There have been several comments received to date, as
> some members will have noted: https://forum.icann.org/lists/
> comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/. Staff will of course
> continue to encourage interested community groups and members to submit
> their comments as soon as they can.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170301/2fcd537e/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Mon Mar 13 20:47:53 2017
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:47:53 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Meeting of March 15th
Message-ID: <8a8afba02edb4b3091241a749df79dd9@toast.net>

Hello everyone,
  
 This evening Matt Shears, Stefania Milan and myself spent approximately 
two hours going over about half of the response to the GNSO Bylaws Drafting 
Team Report (DT). We'll do the other half tomorrow.
  
 What became clear to the three of us is the dependency of the DT processes 
on the proposed GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC), and vice versa. It 
is as blatant as DT staff recommendations that certain statements 
pertaining to selection processes be placed within the SSC Charter. They 
have not been. There was also the perception of the three of us that there 
may be certain specifications relating to the Empowered Community that may 
need to be placed within the SSC Charter.
  
 It is for these reasons that I intend to call for Item 4 on the agenda for 
Wednesday's Council meeting, approval of the SSC Charter,  to be deferred 
or withdrawn. I will further recommend that the Drafting Team be asked to 
send to the small group that has been tasked with creating  the SSC 
specifications any and all provisions it believes should be included in the 
SSC Charter and for the small group, working with staff, to adjust the 
Charter proposal accordingly.
  
 This is not what anyone wants. We have appointments that need to be made 
and they may once again need to be done on an ad hoc basis. Yet what we're 
creating now is intended to be a somewhat permanent part of the GNSO 
landscape. I'd suggest it is better to get it done right rather than fast.
  
 Happy to answer any questions.
  
 Best,
  
 Ed Morris
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170313/8baca260/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Mar 14 08:33:05 2017
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:33:05 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Meeting of March 15th
In-Reply-To: <8a8afba02edb4b3091241a749df79dd9@toast.net>
References: <8a8afba02edb4b3091241a749df79dd9@toast.net>
Message-ID: <5b51f5cf-c00f-73cb-bdd8-547276e5cb51@apc.org>

ok with Stefania.

avri


On 13-Mar-17 19:47, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>  
> This evening Matt Shears, Stefania Milan and myself spent
> approximately two hours going over about half of the response to the
> GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team Report (DT). We'll do the other half tomorrow.
>  
> What became clear to the three of us is the dependency of the DT
> processes on the proposed GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC), and
> vice versa. It is as blatant as DT staff recommendations that certain
> statements pertaining to selection processes be placed within the
> SSC Charter. They have not been. There was also the perception of the
> three of us that there may be certain specifications relating to the
> Empowered Community that may need to be placed within the SSC Charter.
>  
> It is for these reasons that I intend to call for Item 4 on the agenda
> for Wednesday's Council meeting, approval of the SSC Charter,  to be
> deferred or withdrawn. I will further recommend that the Drafting Team
> be asked to send to the small group that has been tasked with creating
>  the SSC specifications any and all provisions it believes should be
> included in the SSC Charter and for the small group, working with
> staff, to adjust the Charter proposal accordingly.
>  
> This is not what anyone wants. We have appointments that need to be
> made and they may once again need to be done on an ad hoc basis. Yet
> what we're creating now is intended to be a somewhat permanent part of
> the GNSO landscape. I'd suggest it is better to get it done right
> rather than fast.
>  
> Happy to answer any questions.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Ed Morris
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 14 10:00:27 2017
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:00:27 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Meeting of March 15th
In-Reply-To: <8a8afba02edb4b3091241a749df79dd9@toast.net>
References: <8a8afba02edb4b3091241a749df79dd9@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk_gevPk1e05y6RqgBrwXR7M8xLAgisWx7brYSfjn_9Ug@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the update.
can you please share some examples of those found dependencies just to make
them more clearer?

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-14 3:47 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hello everyone,
>
> This evening Matt Shears, Stefania Milan and myself spent approximately
> two hours going over about half of the response to the GNSO Bylaws Drafting
> Team Report (DT). We'll do the other half tomorrow.
>
> What became clear to the three of us is the dependency of the DT processes
> on the proposed GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC), and vice versa. It
> is as blatant as DT staff recommendations that certain statements
> pertaining to selection processes be placed within the SSC Charter. They
> have not been. There was also the perception of the three of us that there
> may be certain specifications relating to the Empowered Community that may
> need to be placed within the SSC Charter.
>
> It is for these reasons that I intend to call for Item 4 on the agenda
> for Wednesday's Council meeting, approval of the SSC Charter,  to be
> deferred or withdrawn. I will further recommend that the Drafting Team be
> asked to send to the small group that has been tasked with creating  the
> SSC specifications any and all provisions it believes should be included in
> the SSC Charter and for the small group, working with staff, to adjust the
> Charter proposal accordingly.
>
> This is not what anyone wants. We have appointments that need to be made
> and they may once again need to be done on an ad hoc basis. Yet what we're
> creating now is intended to be a somewhat permanent part of the GNSO
> landscape. I'd suggest it is better to get it done right rather than fast.
>
> Happy to answer any questions.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170314/395fff66/attachment.html>


From egmorris1  Tue Mar 14 10:22:42 2017
From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:22:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Meeting of March 15th
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk_gevPk1e05y6RqgBrwXR7M8xLAgisWx7brYSfjn_9Ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8a8afba02edb4b3091241a749df79dd9@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThk_gevPk1e05y6RqgBrwXR7M8xLAgisWx7brYSfjn_9Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BD641F29-E741-44CB-AD8A-2B4DB5E264F4@toast.net>

Happy to. Matt and Stefania may want to weigh in as well here.

Item 21 of the March 6th DT Review states:

There is no role here

for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee as appointments are directly made by the SGs (this will need to be made clear in the charter for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee)

Each SG will publis 

No mentioned in the SSC Charter of this. There are other instances like this later in the report.

There are 13 references to the GNSO Standing Selection Committee in the first 20 items. None refer as well
to Council as the appointing entity. That's a DT issue but one that in implementation, depending upon what the DT does, could affect the substance of the SSC Charter.

In short, there is a lot of ambiguity and certainly items that need to be placed in the SSC Charter that have not been. I'd suggest that we need to get this right the first time, not pass something in haste and then have to continuously amend it.

Ed


Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 09:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> Thanks for the update.
> can you please share some examples of those found dependencies just to make them more clearer?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2017-03-14 3:47 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>> Hello everyone,
>>  
>> This evening Matt Shears, Stefania Milan and myself spent approximately two hours going over about half of the response to the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team Report (DT). We'll do the other half tomorrow.
>>  
>> What became clear to the three of us is the dependency of the DT processes on the proposed GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC), and vice versa. It is as blatant as DT staff recommendations that certain statements pertaining to selection processes be placed within the SSC Charter. They have not been. There was also the perception of the three of us that there may be certain specifications relating to the Empowered Community that may need to be placed within the SSC Charter.
>>  
>> It is for these reasons that I intend to call for Item 4 on the agenda for Wednesday's Council meeting, approval of the SSC Charter,  to be deferred or withdrawn. I will further recommend that the Drafting Team be asked to send to the small group that has been tasked with creating  the SSC specifications any and all provisions it believes should be included in the SSC Charter and for the small group, working with staff, to adjust the Charter proposal accordingly.
>>  
>> This is not what anyone wants. We have appointments that need to be made and they may once again need to be done on an ad hoc basis. Yet what we're creating now is intended to be a somewhat permanent part of the GNSO landscape. I'd suggest it is better to get it done right rather than fast.
>>  
>> Happy to answer any questions.
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> Ed Morris
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170314/b2c40979/attachment.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Tue Mar 14 10:32:56 2017
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:32:56 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council Meeting of March 15th
In-Reply-To: <BD641F29-E741-44CB-AD8A-2B4DB5E264F4@toast.net>
References: <8a8afba02edb4b3091241a749df79dd9@toast.net>
	<CAH5sThk_gevPk1e05y6RqgBrwXR7M8xLAgisWx7brYSfjn_9Ug@mail.gmail.com>,
	<BD641F29-E741-44CB-AD8A-2B4DB5E264F4@toast.net>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5211EFAD79A1F2D72B149CFF7240@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

In other words, the DT imposes several tasks on the Selection Committee... we need a clear, exhaustive "job description" for the SSC before appointing said SSC and allow it to operate. As far as the actual points go, we are only mid-way into a 59-page document, but we can certainly provide a break-down of all problematic items when we are done.
st.
________________________________________
Da: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Inviato: marted? 14 marzo 2017 09.22.42
A: Rafik Dammak
Cc: pc-ncsg
Oggetto: Re: [PC-NCSG] Council Meeting of March 15th

Happy to. Matt and Stefania may want to weigh in as well here.

Item 21 of the March 6th DT Review states:


  *   There is no role here

for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee as appointments are directly made by the SGs (this will need to be made clear in the charter for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee)

  *   Each SG will publis

No mentioned in the SSC Charter of this. There are other instances like this later in the report.

There are 13 references to the GNSO Standing Selection Committee in the first 20 items. None refer as well
to Council as the appointing entity. That's a DT issue but one that in implementation, depending upon what the DT does, could affect the substance of the SSC Charter.

In short, there is a lot of ambiguity and certainly items that need to be placed in the SSC Charter that have not been. I'd suggest that we need to get this right the first time, not pass something in haste and then have to continuously amend it.

Ed


Sent from my iPhone

On 14 Mar 2017, at 09:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the update.
can you please share some examples of those found dependencies just to make them more clearer?

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-14 3:47 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
Hello everyone,

This evening Matt Shears, Stefania Milan and myself spent approximately two hours going over about half of the response to the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team Report (DT). We'll do the other half tomorrow.

What became clear to the three of us is the dependency of the DT processes on the proposed GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC), and vice versa. It is as blatant as DT staff recommendations that certain statements pertaining to selection processes be placed within the SSC Charter. They have not been. There was also the perception of the three of us that there may be certain specifications relating to the Empowered Community that may need to be placed within the SSC Charter.

It is for these reasons that I intend to call for Item 4 on the agenda for Wednesday's Council meeting, approval of the SSC Charter,  to be deferred or withdrawn. I will further recommend that the Drafting Team be asked to send to the small group that has been tasked with creating  the SSC specifications any and all provisions it believes should be included in the SSC Charter and for the small group, working with staff, to adjust the Charter proposal accordingly.

This is not what anyone wants. We have appointments that need to be made and they may once again need to be done on an ad hoc basis. Yet what we're creating now is intended to be a somewhat permanent part of the GNSO landscape. I'd suggest it is better to get it done right rather than fast.

Happy to answer any questions.

Best,

Ed Morris


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



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



From mshears  Thu Mar 23 13:33:00 2017
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:33:00 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>

Hello PC

Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow.  Please review these 
suggested inputs carefully.

Related docs can be found here.

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en

Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.

Thanks.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
Date: 	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
From: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
Reply-To: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU



Greetings all,

I have drafted up on Google Docs 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing> 
some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the At-Large 
community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your feedback 
on what arguments should be refined, what I might have missed, or what 
we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, 
but I figured it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and 
we can refine this together... so please take a read of the proposed 
statement here 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>, 
with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And 
please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this 
mailing list!

Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this 
together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here 
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF 
link) if you haven't seen it already.

/A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: 
this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by 
the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and the 
time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./

Best wishes,

Ayden F?rdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>



<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170323/f099138c/attachment.html>


From kathy  Thu Mar 23 22:38:58 2017
From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:38:58 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
	<4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <481e1598-df6a-46f2-8602-35a050e5aeb6@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All, At our PC meeting in Copenhagen, various people volunteered to 
work on comments (hooray!).

Later, others came up to join them. I've shared this list with Stefania 
(our comments shepherd), and let me share them with you:

_ICANN Public Comments
_1. IGO-INGO - Martin (lead), Haoran Huang (new member, 
huaghaoran940419 at bupt.edu.cn), Kathy
2. At Large Review - Ayden (lead), Kathy
3. Consumer Trust Review Team (50 recommendations!) - Anna (lead), Kathy 
with Carlos as advisor (since he's on the Review Team)
4. Finance - not certain about this one, but I think Ed, Rafik and Ayden 
volunteered.

_Working Groups comments (requests go out for input on various issues 
from time to time during the PDP process):_

1. Registration Directory Services - Stephanie (lead), Ayden and Stefania

2. Rights Protection Mechanisms - Martin (lead), Anna, Grace and Ines 
with Kathy as advisor (since she's a co-chair)
3. Subsequent Procedures - Matt Shears (I think he wants to be the 
lead), Anna, Stefania, Marilia (I think) with Avri as advisor (since 
she's a co-chair)

Best, Kathy

On 3/23/2017 7:33 AM, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hello PC
>
> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow.  Please review these 
> suggested inputs carefully.
>
> Related docs can be found here.
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>
> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> Date: 	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
> From: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
> Reply-To: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
>
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I have drafted up on Google Docs 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing> 
> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the 
> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your 
> feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have 
> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with 
> it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words 
> down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a 
> read of the proposed statement here 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>, 
> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And 
> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this 
> mailing list!
>
> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this 
> together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here 
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF 
> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>
> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: 
> this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by 
> the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and 
> the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170323/39252f92/attachment.html>


From mshears  Fri Mar 24 00:27:14 2017
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:27:14 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
	<4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>

Hi all

I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments (tomorrow).  
I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into proposing comments 
for NCSG's consideration.   This said, we have had no substantive 
discussion of these comments and their merit on the list or in the PC, 
nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to do so.   Because of 
this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, can endorse these 
comments for NCSG.

The NCSG PC should have a  better process in place for ensuring that 
there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be 
rectifying this promptly.

Matthew


On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hello PC
>
> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow.  Please review these 
> suggested inputs carefully.
>
> Related docs can be found here.
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>
> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> Date: 	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
> From: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
> Reply-To: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
>
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I have drafted up on Google Docs 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing> 
> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the 
> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your 
> feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have 
> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with 
> it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words 
> down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a 
> read of the proposed statement here 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>, 
> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And 
> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this 
> mailing list!
>
> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this 
> together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here 
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF 
> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>
> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: 
> this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by 
> the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and 
> the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>

-- 
------------
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/20170323/aa8b65c9/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Mar 24 02:20:25 2017
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:20:25 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
	<4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
	<b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>

I just spent some time commenting.  I would suggest that we keep working 
on them, try to develop a more positive tone that indicates our shared 
experience.....but we are not going to get people to sign up for 
drafting comments if we reject them.  Folks are always going to be too 
busy to engage in a fulsome discussion.

Happy to hear about a better process....but in the meantime, better to 
fix this and boil it down to a couple of pages we can agree on than to 
give up, in my view....

cheers Stephanie

PS I think you used the old address so I included the new one....



On 2017-03-23 18:27, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments 
> (tomorrow).  I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into 
> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration.   This said, we have had 
> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the 
> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to 
> do so.   Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, 
> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>
> The NCSG PC should have a  better process in place for ensuring that 
> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be 
> rectifying this promptly.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>> Hello PC
>>
>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow.  Please review these 
>> suggested inputs carefully.
>>
>> Related docs can be found here.
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>
>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> Date: 	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>> From: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>> Reply-To: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> I have drafted up on Google Docs 
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing> 
>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the 
>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome 
>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have 
>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with 
>> it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words 
>> down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a 
>> read of the proposed statement here 
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>, 
>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And 
>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this 
>> mailing list!
>>
>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this 
>> together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here 
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF 
>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>>
>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing 
>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed 
>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between 
>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------
> 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/20170323/60452512/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Mar 24 02:24:04 2017
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:24:04 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
	<4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
	<b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
	<d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4268b6fd-2c37-683e-8281-b81db39e100e@mail.utoronto.ca>

ANd I forgot to say, many thanks to Ayden for slogging away on this!! 
the report was a beast to get through, and pulling this together a hard 
task.  Don't worry I think we can still get a shorter perhaps comment if 
a few of us can pull together and put in some comments.  Dont everybody 
disappear tomorrow on a Friday break....

Stephanie


On 2017-03-23 20:20, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I just spent some time commenting.  I would suggest that we keep 
> working on them, try to develop a more positive tone that indicates 
> our shared experience.....but we are not going to get people to sign 
> up for drafting comments if we reject them.  Folks are always going to 
> be too busy to engage in a fulsome discussion.
>
> Happy to hear about a better process....but in the meantime, better to 
> fix this and boil it down to a couple of pages we can agree on than to 
> give up, in my view....
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
> PS I think you used the old address so I included the new one....
>
>
>
> On 2017-03-23 18:27, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments 
>> (tomorrow).  I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into 
>> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration.   This said, we have had 
>> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the 
>> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to 
>> do so.   Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, 
>> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>>
>> The NCSG PC should have a  better process in place for ensuring that 
>> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be 
>> rectifying this promptly.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello PC
>>>
>>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow.  Please review these 
>>> suggested inputs carefully.
>>>
>>> Related docs can be found here.
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>>
>>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated 
>>> asap.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: 	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>>> Date: 	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>>> From: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>>> Reply-To: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings all,
>>>
>>> I have drafted up on Google Docs 
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing> 
>>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the 
>>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome 
>>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have 
>>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy 
>>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some 
>>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please 
>>> take a read of the proposed statement here 
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>, 
>>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And 
>>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this 
>>> mailing list!
>>>
>>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get 
>>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here 
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF 
>>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>>>
>>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing 
>>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed 
>>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between 
>>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170323/28f47e01/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Fri Mar 24 13:30:01 2017
From: mshears (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:30:01 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
	<775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <bae4779b-45a3-aa39-f3dd-d329fc4f92c5@cdt.org>

Morning

As of 23:59 last night there were no additional expressions of interest 
directly to me or on the list as far as I can see.

This means that the NCSG PC has to select three of the four following 
candidates for the Standing Selection Committee (SSC). The candidates are:

  * Rafik Dammak
    https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI
  * Poncelet Ileleji
    https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Poncelet+Ileleji+SOI
  * Ed Morris https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Edward+Morris+SOI
  * Kris Seeburn
    https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Kris+Seeburn+SOI

There are a number of ways we can decide who the members should be.   
One simple solution is to agree all, with one as an alternate (foreseen 
in the SSC outline doc.).

Alternatively, we could discuss and agree the criteria important to this 
role on this list and then try and hold a Skype call or similar to agree 
the slots (at the latest sometime Monday).

If PC members have other suggestions please reply all.  (We are of 
course supposed to decide by rough consensus as per the NCSG bylaws 
section 2.5.2 
https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf)

Please indicate your preferred way forward today.  Our deadline for 
communicating the names is Monday.

Many thanks.

Matthew

On 20/03/2017 22:49, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> We have three slots to fill.  So far we have three candidates who are 
> members of the PC including the PC Chair - Poncelet, Ed and Rafik - 
> and as far as I know they have appropriately recused themselves from 
> the process.
>
> A call has been made to the community for further nominations - the 
> deadline is Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>
> I suggest that the remainder of the PC be ready to assess the raft of 
> candidates on the 24th (including any potential new candidates) and 
> express their views on the list.  If we remain with the above three 
> our job is straightforward.  If we have additional candidates then we 
> may well have to vote.
>
> We have deadline of the 27th to communicate the names of our members.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 20/03/2017 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG 
>> GNSO Councilors are each a representative of _all_ NCSG members, not 
>> of specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this 
>> fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the 
>> _entire_ SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG. 
>>  This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I 
>> personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand 
>> the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for 
>> all of the NCSG.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent 
>>> <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been 
>>> a long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Martin Silva
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     hi all,
>>>
>>>     I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>     I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>     ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>
>>>     Best Regards,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>>>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>>>
>>>         Dear all,
>>>
>>>         See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>
>>>         Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>
>>>         Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>
>>>         Tapani
>>>
>>>         ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>         <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>>>
>>>
>>>         Dear All,
>>>
>>>         On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>         Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>         https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>         <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
>>>
>>>         The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>>         where
>>>         applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
>>>         to the
>>>         selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>>         such as
>>>         ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>         Empowered
>>>         Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>         applicants/candidates,
>>>         3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>         recommendations for
>>>         review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
>>>         to all
>>>         interested parties.
>>>
>>>         The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>
>>>         The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>         follows:
>>>         -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of
>>>         the Contracted Party House;
>>>         -          One member appointed respectively from each of
>>>         the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property
>>>         Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and
>>>         Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>         -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial
>>>         Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>         -          One member from one of the three
>>>         Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>
>>>         The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>         selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>         Directory
>>>         Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
>>>         by its 20
>>>         April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
>>>         the SSC
>>>         to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
>>>         the GNSO
>>>         Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>         consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>
>>>         Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>         member(s) to
>>>         the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>         (gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
>>>         latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>>         Thursday 30
>>>         March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>
>>>         Best regards,
>>>
>>>         Marika Konings
>>>         Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>         Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>>         ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987

-- 
------------
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/20170324/352074b8/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Mar 24 17:51:12 2017
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:51:12 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
	Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <bae4779b-45a3-aa39-f3dd-d329fc4f92c5@cdt.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
	<775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
	<bae4779b-45a3-aa39-f3dd-d329fc4f92c5@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <7D5BB05D-67EE-4581-BEDD-89A26E99FF73@ipjustice.org>

It was my understanding that Renata also applied for this, although she was traveling yesterday, so her email may not have gotten through.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 4:30 AM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Morning
> 
> As of 23:59 last night there were no additional expressions of interest directly to me or on the list as far as I can see.
> 
> This means that the NCSG PC has to select three of the four following candidates for the Standing Selection Committee (SSC).  The candidates are:
> 
> Rafik Dammak https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI>
> Poncelet Ileleji https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Poncelet+Ileleji+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Poncelet+Ileleji+SOI>
> Ed Morris https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Edward+Morris+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Edward+Morris+SOI>
> Kris Seeburn https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Kris+Seeburn+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Kris+Seeburn+SOI>
> There are a number of ways we can decide who the members should be.   One simple solution is to agree all, with one as an alternate (foreseen in the SSC outline doc.).
> Alternatively, we could discuss and agree the criteria important to this role on this list and then try and hold a Skype call or similar to agree the slots (at the latest sometime Monday).
> 
> If PC members have other suggestions please reply all.  (We are of course supposed to decide by rough consensus as per the NCSG bylaws section 2.5.2 https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf>)
> Please indicate your preferred way forward today.  Our deadline for communicating the names is Monday.
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 20/03/2017 22:49, matthew shears wrote:
>> Hi all
>> 
>> We have three slots to fill.  So far we have three candidates who are members of the PC including the PC Chair - Poncelet, Ed and Rafik - and as far as I know they have appropriately recused themselves from the process.
>> 
>> A call has been made to the community for further nominations - the deadline is Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.   
>> I suggest that the remainder of the PC be ready to assess the raft of candidates on the 24th (including any potential new candidates) and express their views on the list.  If we remain with the above three our job is straightforward.  If we have additional candidates then we may well have to vote.
>> 
>> We have deadline of the 27th to communicate the names of our members.
>> 
>> Does this make sense?
>> 
>> Matthew
>> 
>> 
>> On 20/03/2017 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG GNSO Councilors are each a representative of all NCSG members, not of specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the entire SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG.  This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for all of the NCSG.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all, 
>>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.  
>>>> 
>>>> Best, 
>>>> Martin Silva 
>>>> 
>>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>> 
>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>> 
>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>> 
>>>> Tapani
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
>>>> 
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>> interested parties.
>>>> 
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>>> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>> 
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> 
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>	Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> -- 
>> ------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
> 
> -- 
> ------------
> 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://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170324/a70fe24b/attachment-0001.html>


From Stefania.Milan  Fri Mar 24 18:40:01 2017
From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:40:01 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>,
	<mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521FA79926523C4D1482C94F73E0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

it is an excellent suggestion, Ayden!!
________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Inviato: venerd? 24 marzo 2017 17.33.17
A: matthew shears
Cc: ncsg-pc
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?

- Ayden


On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.  Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process.  Thoughts welcome.

Matthew


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Interest in GNSO SSC
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
From:   Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>
To:     Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>


Dear Matthew

I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.

I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.

This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.

My SOI
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI

I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.

Thanks


Date:    Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
From:    Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>>
Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----


Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= >.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
-          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
-          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
-          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
-          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
(gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: g nso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png] <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>        Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

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



From avri  Fri Mar 24 21:23:10 2017
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:23:10 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521FA79926523C4D1482C94F73E0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
	<mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
	<DB3PR05MB521FA79926523C4D1482C94F73E0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <9953f65a-5962-6dc3-84a8-075fdda32ea0@apc.org>


seems reasonable.

avri


On 24-Mar-17 12:40, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> it is an excellent suggestion, Ayden!!
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Inviato: venerd? 24 marzo 2017 17.33.17
> A: matthew shears
> Cc: ncsg-pc
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>
> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>
> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.  Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>
> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process.  Thoughts welcome.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Interest in GNSO SSC
> Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
> From:   Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>
> To:     Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>
>
> Dear Matthew
>
> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>
> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>
> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>
> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
>
> My SOI
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>
> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Date:    Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
> From:    Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>>
> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>
> Dear all,
>
> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>
> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>
> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
> think you would be qualified for the task.
>
> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= >.
>
> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> interested parties.
>
> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>
> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>
> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>
> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: g nso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> March at 16.00 UTC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika Konings
> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png] <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>        Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Mar  1 14:48:22 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:48:22 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection
	Process
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=6Mbd57UZgoRjREsahPnc5L1idFAEy4zbOuWxHd_=p2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aOHUTrHwFyyo8_jBW2zuv+2A9xO4ma3JMzEw29ocfR2v024A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmRyhHapQTZMn9rDpOY3JsdMS5KnYyDu3oLG4X2zRsr9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe1d6af1-1739-9a12-ed00-9b29b272c92e@cdt.org>
 <CAH5sThkuuuh4hz0=awaS4VT0aKrfzLJ1popvU3ZA1aioNBNp+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThk314LoDs0AewxXdmG_ER_xZx_-T928HhMxRc=TQV72xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org>
 <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org>
 <CAH5sThk8JtvXgFP_09OLLQnKeRiVjRzAf6Vr_2SsBSMYmZ5TAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f53a867f-b0c3-e484-48d1-504c20b34efa@acm.org>
 <CAH5sTh=6Mbd57UZgoRjREsahPnc5L1idFAEy4zbOuWxHd_=p2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk-zvNenqkJxrmxZ+-HnYAEiMcTaB-NsCMbWpMNig0XRw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also our
suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .

Best,

Rafik

2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi Avri,
>
> thanks for the suggestion,
>
> so we have now:
> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
> starting (Wednesday?)
>
> Our counter-proposal is:
>
>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two
>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
> house.
>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>     against NOTA
>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>     our act together.
>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>     get our act together.
>
> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
> 2017-02-24
>  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>
>
>>
>> some minor typo corrections
>>
>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>
>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>> two
>
>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>     against NOTA
>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>     our act together.
>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>     get our act together.
>>
>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>> >
>> > I guess we say:
>> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>> > parallel starting next week Monday
>> > - Our counter-proposal is:
>> >
>> >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>> >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>> >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>> >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>> >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>> >     NOTA
>> >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>> >     get our act together.
>> >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>> >     get our act together.
>> >
>> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Rafik
>> >
>> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org
>> >>:
>> >
>> >     Hi,
>> >
>> >     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>> >
>> >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>> >
>> >     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>> >     succeed.
>> >
>> >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>> >
>> >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>> >
>> >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>> >     against NOTA
>> >
>> >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get
>> our
>> >     act together.
>> >
>> >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>> >     we get
>> >     our act together.
>> >
>> >     avri
>> >
>> >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>> >     >
>> >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>> considering/or
>> >     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>> >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>> >     week?
>> >     >
>> >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>> >     week?  or
>> >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>> >     CSG and
>> >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>> >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>> >     >
>> >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>> >     >
>> >     > Matthew
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> >     >> Hi all,
>> >     >>
>> >     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>> >     quickly. at
>> >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>> >     >>
>> >     >> Best,
>> >     >>
>> >     >> Rafik
>> >     >>
>> >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> >>>:
>> >     >>
>> >     >>     Hi Matt,
>> >     >>
>> >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>> >     topic.
>> >     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>> >     process
>> >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>> >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>> for
>> >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we
>> >     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>> >     >>
>> >     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>> press
>> >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which
>> are
>> >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>> >     >>
>> >     >>     Best,
>> >     >>
>> >     >>     Rafik
>> >     >>
>> >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>> >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>> >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>> >     >>
>> >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>> >     >>
>> >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>> >     with it
>> >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>> >     >>
>> >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>> >     which
>> >     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>> general
>> >     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>> >     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
>> different
>> >     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>> >     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>> >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>> >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in the
>> >     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>> >     proposal
>> >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>> >     to be
>> >     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>> >     >>
>> >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>> >     process and
>> >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so
>> at
>> >     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>> >     >>
>> >     >>         Matthew
>> >     >>
>> >     >>
>> >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>> >     board
>> >     >>>         seat election.
>> >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>> >     or not
>> >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended
>> >     >>>         intersessional?
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>> points
>> >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>> >     from our
>> >     >>>         expectations.
>> >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>> >     by end
>> >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>         Best,
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>         Rafik
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>> >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>> >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>> >     Selection Process
>> >     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>> >     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>> >     >>>         Cc:
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             All,
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to finish
>> >     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>> >     small
>> >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>> >     this
>> >     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides of
>> the
>> >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
>> we've
>> >     >>>             already started the process without knowing what it
>> is
>> >     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures
>> >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>> >     following
>> >     >>>             for consideration:
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>> >     CSG and
>> >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>> >     process.
>> >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with
>> a
>> >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>> from
>> >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>> >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section
>> >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>> Seats
>> >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>> >     Bylaws), and
>> >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>> >     11.3(f).
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go
>> >     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>> >     weeks
>> >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>> >     airplane
>> >     >>>             in the air.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>> >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any
>> >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>> >     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done so,
>> we
>> >     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP
>> >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>> >     >>>             nomination period).
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>> and
>> >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>> >     when
>> >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>> >     agreed
>> >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>> >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process as
>> >     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need to
>> get
>> >     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG to
>> >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>> >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>> >     that and
>> >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>> >     arrange a
>> >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>> >     forward.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             Greg
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got here,
>> but
>> >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>> >     Procedures
>> >     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>> deadline
>> >     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one month
>> to
>> >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>> >     being
>> >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>> >     updated in
>> >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>> >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>> >     error.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>> >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>> >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>> >     Selection Process
>> >     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>> >     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed
>> >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on the
>> >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>> House.
>> >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>> changes
>> >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>> >     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>> (but
>> >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>> >     >>>             rights):
>> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>> >     >>>
>> >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board
>> >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>> >     making it
>> >     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>> >     the IPC,
>> >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion
>> on
>> >     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we have
>> for
>> >     >>>             this year.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             Thanks!
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>> Teams)
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>> >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>             _______________________________________________
>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>> >     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>> >     >>>
>> >      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>> >     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>         _______________________________________________
>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> >     <mailto: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>
>> >     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>> >     >>
>> >     >>         --
>> >     >>         ------------
>> >     >>         Matthew Shears
>> >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> >     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>> >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>> >     >>
>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>> >     >> 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>
>> >     > --
>> >     > ------------
>> >     > Matthew Shears
>> >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> >     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>> >     >
>> >     > _______________________________________________
>> >     > 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>
>> >
>> >
>> >     ---
>> >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>> >
>> >     _______________________________________________
>> >     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>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170301/16b5ae05/attachment.htm>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Wed Mar  1 14:54:33 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:54:33 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection
 Process
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk-zvNenqkJxrmxZ+-HnYAEiMcTaB-NsCMbWpMNig0XRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aOHUTrHwFyyo8_jBW2zuv+2A9xO4ma3JMzEw29ocfR2v024A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmRyhHapQTZMn9rDpOY3JsdMS5KnYyDu3oLG4X2zRsr9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe1d6af1-1739-9a12-ed00-9b29b272c92e@cdt.org>
 <CAH5sThkuuuh4hz0=awaS4VT0aKrfzLJ1popvU3ZA1aioNBNp+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThk314LoDs0AewxXdmG_ER_xZx_-T928HhMxRc=TQV72xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org>
 <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org>
 <CAH5sThk8JtvXgFP_09OLLQnKeRiVjRzAf6Vr_2SsBSMYmZ5TAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f53a867f-b0c3-e484-48d1-504c20b34efa@acm.org>
 <CAH5sTh=6Mbd57UZgoRjREsahPnc5L1idFAEy4zbOuWxHd_=p2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThk-zvNenqkJxrmxZ+-HnYAEiMcTaB-NsCMbWpMNig0XRw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3fb61a903aa54d908871c3129760ebc8@toast.net>

Thanks Rafik. 
  
 One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations, 
nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just 
members of the PC?
  
 I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved 
in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully 
understand the process.
  
 Kind Regards,
  
 Ed 
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
To: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
Cc: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection 
Process   
  Hi everyone,
  
 since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also our 
suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
  
 Best,
  
 Rafik
  2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:    Hi 
Avri,
  
 thanks for the suggestion,
  
 so we have now:
 - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
- we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel 
starting (Wednesday?)

Our counter-proposal is:

  * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
  * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
  * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
  * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two
   * a joint interview of the top 2  before second round with the whole 
house. 
  * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
    against NOTA
  * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
    our act together.
  *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
    get our act together.

we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
 can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
   
 Best,
  
 Rafik 2017-02-24
  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:     

some minor typo corrections

Our counter-proposal is:

  * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
  * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
  * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
  * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two  
   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
    against NOTA
  * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
    our act together.
  *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
    get our act together.

On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>
> I guess we say:
> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
> parallel starting next week Monday
> - Our counter-proposal is:
>
>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>     NOTA
>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>     get our act together.
>   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>     get our act together.
>
> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org 
<mailto:avri at apc.org>>:   >
>     Hi,
>
>     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>
>     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>
>     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>     succeed.
>
>     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>
>     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>
>     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>     against NOTA
>
>     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get 
our
>     act together.
>
>     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>     we get
>     our act together.
>
>     avri
>
>     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>     >
>     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are 
considering/or
>     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>     week?
>     >
>     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>     week?  or
>     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>     CSG and
>     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>     >
>     > In the interim start work on the process?
>     >
>     > Matthew
>     >
>     >
>     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>     >> Hi all,
>     >>
>     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>     quickly. at
>     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>     >>
>     >> Best,
>     >>
>     >> Rafik
>     >>
>     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>

>     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>:
>     >>
>     >>     Hi Matt,
>     >>
>     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>     topic.
>     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>     process
>     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates 
for
>     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we
>     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>     >>
>     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to 
press
>     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which 
are
>     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>     >>
>     >>     Best,
>     >>
>     >>     Rafik
>     >>
>     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:   >     
>>
>     >>         Thanks Rafik
>     >>
>     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>     with it
>     >>         and we are running out of time.
>     >>
>     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>     which
>     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some 
general
>     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on 
different
>     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in the
>     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>     proposal
>     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>     to be
>     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>     >>
>     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>     process and
>     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so 
at
>     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>     >>
>     >>         Matthew
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>     >>>         Hi everyone,
>     >>>
>     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>     board
>     >>>         seat election.
>     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>     or not
>     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended
>     >>>         intersessional?
>     >>>
>     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable 
points
>     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>     >>>
>     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>     from our
>     >>>         expectations.
>     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>     by end
>     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>     >>>
>     >>>         Best,
>     >>>
>     >>>         Rafik
>     >>>
>     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

>     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>     Selection Process
>     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>   >     >>>         
<mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>     >>>         Cc:
>     >>>
>     >>>             All,
>     >>>
>     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to finish
>     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>     small
>     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>     this
>     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides of 
the
>     >>>             NCPH on it.
>     >>>
>     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and 
we've
>     >>>             already started the process without knowing what it 
is
>     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>     >>>
>     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures
>     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>     following
>     >>>             for consideration:
>     >>>
>     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>     CSG and
>     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>     process.
>     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with 
a
>     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts 
from
>     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section
>     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for 
Seats
>     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>     Bylaws), and
>     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>     11.3(f).
>     >>>
>     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>     >>>
>     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go
>     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>     weeks
>     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>     airplane
>     >>>             in the air.
>     >>>
>     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any
>     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>     >>>
>     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done so, 
we
>     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP
>     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>     >>>             nomination period).
>     >>>
>     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process 
and
>     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>     when
>     >>>             it comes to voting.
>     >>>
>     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>     agreed
>     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process as
>     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need to 
get
>     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG to
>     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>     that and
>     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>     arrange a
>     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>     forward.
>     >>>
>     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>     >>>
>     >>>             Greg
>     >>>
>     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got here, 
but
>     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>     Procedures
>     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws 
deadline
>     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one month 
to
>     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>     being
>     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>     updated in
>     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>     error.
>     >>>
>     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>     >>>             S: gsshatan
>     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>     Selection Process
>     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org   >     
<mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>     >>>
>     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed
>     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on the
>     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties 
House.
>     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing 
changes
>     >>>             from the CPH document.
>     >>>
>     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode 
(but
>     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>     >>>             rights):
>     
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O
9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>     
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8
O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>     >>>
>      
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8
O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>     
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8
O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>     >>>
>     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board
>     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>     making it
>     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>     >>>
>     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>     the IPC,
>     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion 
on
>     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we have 
for
>     >>>             this year.
>     >>>
>     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>     >>>
>     >>>             Thanks!
>     >>>
>     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional 
Teams)
>     >>>
>     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>     >>>             S: gsshatan
>     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>             _______________________________________________
>     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>     >>>
>      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>     >>>             
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>         _______________________________________________
>     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     <mailto: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>
>     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>     >>
>     >>         --
>     >>         ------------
>     >>         Matthew Shears
>     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> 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>
>     > --
>     > ------------
>     > Matthew Shears
>     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > 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>
>
>
>     ---
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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>
>
>

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170301/2d42bd63/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Mar  1 14:58:18 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:58:18 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection
	Process
In-Reply-To: <3fb61a903aa54d908871c3129760ebc8@toast.net>
References: <CA+aOHUTrHwFyyo8_jBW2zuv+2A9xO4ma3JMzEw29ocfR2v024A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmRyhHapQTZMn9rDpOY3JsdMS5KnYyDu3oLG4X2zRsr9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe1d6af1-1739-9a12-ed00-9b29b272c92e@cdt.org>
 <CAH5sThkuuuh4hz0=awaS4VT0aKrfzLJ1popvU3ZA1aioNBNp+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThk314LoDs0AewxXdmG_ER_xZx_-T928HhMxRc=TQV72xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org>
 <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org>
 <CAH5sThk8JtvXgFP_09OLLQnKeRiVjRzAf6Vr_2SsBSMYmZ5TAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f53a867f-b0c3-e484-48d1-504c20b34efa@acm.org>
 <CAH5sTh=6Mbd57UZgoRjREsahPnc5L1idFAEy4zbOuWxHd_=p2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThk-zvNenqkJxrmxZ+-HnYAEiMcTaB-NsCMbWpMNig0XRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3fb61a903aa54d908871c3129760ebc8@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=t-T9gv_z-FGub5L-ZEDu=4uJdbXnAegS=owZpM6fANQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act quickly
on it.
I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Thanks Rafik.
>
> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
> members of the PC?
>
> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
> understand the process.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
> Selection Process
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also our
> suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>
>> so we have now:
>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>
>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>
>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two
>>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>> house.
>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>     against NOTA
>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>     our act together.
>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>     get our act together.
>>
>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>> 2017-02-24
>>  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>
>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>
>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>> two
>>
>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>     against NOTA
>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>     our act together.
>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>     get our act together.
>>>
>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>> >
>>> > I guess we say:
>>> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>> > parallel starting next week Monday
>>> > - Our counter-proposal is:
>>> >
>>> >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>> >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>> >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>> >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>> >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>>> >     NOTA
>>> >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>> >     get our act together.
>>> >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>> >     get our act together.
>>> >
>>> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>> CSG.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> >
>>> > Rafik
>>> >
>>> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>> >
>>> >     Hi,
>>> >
>>> >     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>> >
>>> >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>> >
>>> >     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>> >     succeed.
>>> >
>>> >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>> >
>>> >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>> >
>>> >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>> >     against NOTA
>>> >
>>> >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get
>>> our
>>> >     act together.
>>> >
>>> >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>> >     we get
>>> >     our act together.
>>> >
>>> >     avri
>>> >
>>> >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>> considering/or
>>> >     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>> >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>>> >     week?
>>> >     >
>>> >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>> >     week?  or
>>> >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>> >     CSG and
>>> >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>>> >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Matthew
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> >     >> Hi all,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>> >     quickly. at
>>> >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> Best,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> Rafik
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> >>>:
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     Hi Matt,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>>> >     topic.
>>> >     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>> >     process
>>> >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>> >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>>> for
>>> >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
>>> we
>>> >     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>> press
>>> >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which
>>> are
>>> >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     Best,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     Rafik
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>> >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>> >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>> >     with it
>>> >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>>> >     which
>>> >     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>> general
>>> >     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>> >     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>> different
>>> >     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>> >     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>> >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>> >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>> the
>>> >     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>> >     proposal
>>> >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>> >     to be
>>> >     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>> >     process and
>>> >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so
>>> at
>>> >     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         Matthew
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>>> >     board
>>> >     >>>         seat election.
>>> >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>> >     or not
>>> >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>> attended
>>> >     >>>         intersessional?
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>> points
>>> >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>> >     from our
>>> >     >>>         expectations.
>>> >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>> >     by end
>>> >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         Best,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         Rafik
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>> >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>> >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>> >     Selection Process
>>> >     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>> >     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>> >     >>>         Cc:
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             All,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to finish
>>> >     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>>> >     small
>>> >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>>> >     this
>>> >     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides of
>>> the
>>> >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>> we've
>>> >     >>>             already started the process without knowing what
>>> it is
>>> >     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures
>>> >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>> >     following
>>> >     >>>             for consideration:
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>> >     CSG and
>>> >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>> >     process.
>>> >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>> with a
>>> >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>>> from
>>> >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>> >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section
>>> >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>> Seats
>>> >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>> >     Bylaws), and
>>> >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>> >     11.3(f).
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
>>> go
>>> >     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>> >     weeks
>>> >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>> >     airplane
>>> >     >>>             in the air.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>> >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>> any
>>> >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>> >     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done so,
>>> we
>>> >     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations
>>> ASAP
>>> >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>> >     >>>             nomination period).
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>>> and
>>> >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>>> >     when
>>> >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>> >     agreed
>>> >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>> >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process as
>>> >     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need to
>>> get
>>> >     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
>>> to
>>> >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>> >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>> >     that and
>>> >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>> >     arrange a
>>> >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>> >     forward.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             Greg
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got here,
>>> but
>>> >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>> >     Procedures
>>> >     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>> deadline
>>> >     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one month
>>> to
>>> >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>> >     being
>>> >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>> >     updated in
>>> >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>> >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>>> >     error.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>> >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>> >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>> >     Selection Process
>>> >     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>> >     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed
>>> >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>> the
>>> >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>> House.
>>> >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>> changes
>>> >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>> >     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>> (but
>>> >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>>> >     >>>             rights):
>>> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>> Board
>>> >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>> >     making it
>>> >     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>> >     the IPC,
>>> >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>> discussion on
>>> >     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we have
>>> for
>>> >     >>>             this year.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             Thanks!
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>> Teams)
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>> >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             _______________________________________________
>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>> >     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>> >     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         _______________________________________________
>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> >     <mailto: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>
>>> >     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>> >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         --
>>> >     >>         ------------
>>> >     >>         Matthew Shears
>>> >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> >     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>> >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>>> >     >> 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>
>>> >     > --
>>> >     > ------------
>>> >     > Matthew Shears
>>> >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> >     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>> >     >
>>> >     > _______________________________________________
>>> >     > 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>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     ---
>>> >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>> software.
>>> >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>> >
>>> >     _______________________________________________
>>> >     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>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170301/211d4477/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Mar  1 17:24:25 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:24:25 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] SSR2 sessions at
	ICANN58
In-Reply-To: <7B29DDF2-37FC-4F11-8D3A-350BC2BB1AC9@godaddy.com>
References: <7B29DDF2-37FC-4F11-8D3A-350BC2BB1AC9@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <ca42f927-1e59-32a0-c61a-ab9a93501515@mail.utoronto.ca>


FYI
Stephanie

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] SSR2 sessions at ICANN58
Date: 	Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:57:32 +0000
From: 	James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>



Councilors ? FYI.


Thank you,

J.

*From: *<soac-infoalert-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Karen Mulberry 
<karen.mulberry at icann.org>
*Date: *Monday, February 27, 2017 at 18:21 *Subject: *[Soac-infoalert] 
SSR2 sessions at ICANN58

Dear SO/AC Leaders,

I wanted to bring to your attention two SSR2 sessions being held during 
ICANN58 that might be of interest to your communities.

*March 12 *| 13:45 ? 15:00 | Hall A3

*SSR2 Public Consultation *with the second Security, Stability and 
Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2)

This is your opportunity to raise issues you see facing the security, 
stability and resiliency of the DNS and to provide vital input into the 
what the SSR2 Review Team should consider as it develops the focus of 
its review.


*March 15 *| 08:30 ? 16:30 | MR3

*SSR2 Review Team *first plenary meeting of the newly selected members 
of the second Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) 
review team.

This will be the start of discussions on the SSR2 review team?s scope 
and work plan in keeping with the SSR2 mandate from the ICANN Bylaws 
which require a periodic review of ICANN?s execution of its commitment 
to enhance the operational stability, reliability, resiliency, security, 
and global interoperability of the systems and processes, both internal 
and external, that directly affect and/or are affected by the Internet?s 
system of unique identifiers that ICANN coordinates.

There is also an opportunity for interested community members to follow 
the work of the SSR2 Review Team by becoming a Review Team Observer.  
Information on being an Observer is located at 
https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/Observers

I hope that members from your community will be able to participate in 
these important sessions at ICANN58.

Sincerely,

/Karen Mulberry/

Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)

*ICANN*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170301/2fa705fb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council


From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org  Thu Mar  2 13:48:07 2017
From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:48:07 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment period extended for the IGO-INGO Curative
 Rights PDP Initial Report
Message-ID: <2CF4B0D8-3EEA-4790-AE5B-C4B02A1A2E2F@icann.org>

Dear Councilors,

Please note that the public comment period for the Initial Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group has been extended, on request, to 30 March 2017 (see below for further information). We hope this will allow your respective communities sufficient time to consider submitting comments to the report.

For your information, a 30-minute slot has been allocated for the Working Group co-chairs ? as has been done for the other ongoing PDP Working Groups ? to discuss progress with the Council and GNSO community as part of the GNSO Working Sessions on Sunday 12 March. To maximize the discussion time, you may wish to consider sending in any questions you or your communities may have for each PDP Working Group ahead of time ? staff will be pleased to collate and circulate the questions on your behalf.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 09:34
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>>
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Comment period extended for the Initial Report

Dear all,

In view of community requests received for an extension of the public comment period for our Initial Report, the Working Group co-chairs have agreed to an extension of 2 weeks following the close of the upcoming ICANN58 Public Meeting. The comment period will now close on 30 March 2017: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_igo-2Dingo-2Dcrp-2Daccess-2Dinitial-2D2017-2D01-2D20-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=A5PUHNxZk6Yu1otCQAbQBKiPW5Vn8DzuPtuPspzj4qs&s=j8W4WYgginzWf84ELZjNd5TxEgjOpWaZ8V3bnZddq8I&e=>.

We do not anticipate this extension affecting the current plan to discuss our preliminary recommendations, and feedback received so far, with the community at ICANN58. There have been several comments received to date, as some members will have noted: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/[forum.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_comments-2Digo-2Dingo-2Dcrp-2Daccess-2Dinitial-2D20jan17_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=A5PUHNxZk6Yu1otCQAbQBKiPW5Vn8DzuPtuPspzj4qs&s=EQecKUjAWA7Hottk09mG_mTPK7nL9hvrolKWoWPkUkQ&e=>. Staff will of course continue to encourage interested community groups and members to submit their comments as soon as they can.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170302/29a35636/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Mar  2 22:53:39 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:53:39 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement
	association resolution regarding domain registration data
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR13MB1843C6C7B3551E92595FCB99D9280@BN6PR13MB1843.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN6PR13MB1843C6C7B3551E92595FCB99D9280@BN6PR13MB1843.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <IW7qahwpISvjiMKaO3WG5PTO2oFKkL8DiSZoMElJyNIXuYsOn4tC7oC9p6azDWkNFH7ERl_K89rfMSlIQim-EHcnF5R2aepkhxC3QfwS_HU=@ferdeline.com>

Grr... Should we react to this? Draft a statement condemning elements of their resolution? Write them a letter putting forward our issues with it, and suggest they join relevant PDPs if they wish to influence the future of the RDS? Or take no action?



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration data
Local Time: 2 March 2017 6:35 PM
UTC Time: 2 March 2017 18:35
From: gca at icginc.com
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>



The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has issued an official resolution regarding domain name registration data.





The resolution requests that ICANN and related parties provide ?continued access to publicly available databases concerning the allocation of Internet resources, and in situations where the maintenance of these databases may conflict with privacy regulation, business concerns, or data-mining prevention efforts, fully consult with the International law enforcement to assist in the resolution of these potential conflicts before removing or restricting law enforcement access to this critical information; and? that IACP membership coordinate the above efforts to achieve the goal of providing consistent, equal, and uniform access to the above-referenced resources for all of the international law enforcement community.?





Founded in 1893, the IACP (www.iacp.org) is the professional association for law enforcement officers, with members in 133 countries worldwide, primarily leadership-level personnel in national, state/provincial, and local agencies. "The Association's goals are to advance the science and art of police services; to develop and disseminate improved administrative, technical and operational practices and promote their use in police work; to foster police cooperation and the exchange of information and experience among police administrators throughout the world....and to encourage adherence of all police officers to high professional standards of performance and conduct."





The text of the full resolution is below and contains the rationales. It notes that loss of access to the currently available data ?would severely cripple or eliminate the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct investigation in a timely manner.?





The document is attached, and also at: [ http://www.theiacp.org/Resolutions](http://www.theiacp.org/Resolutions)





I kindly request that this be added to our bank of reference materials. (Thanks, Lisa and Michelle.)








Support for Law Enforcement Access to Publicly Available and Accurate Internet Address Registration Data to include privacy protected registrant information and related Forensic Resources to facilitate investigation of Cybercrime and Cyber Enabled Crime


Submitted by: Communications and Technology Committee


CTC.06.t16


WHEREAS, this is an updated version of an expired 2005 adopted resolution then submitted by the Communications and Technology Committee as CT23.a05 and adopted at the 112th Annual Conference; and


WHEREAS, the lawful investigation of Internet communications is one of the most valuable tools available to law enforcement in identifying both the perpetrators and victims of crime; and


WHEREAS, the Internet is global in nature, and as such, poses challenges when conducting multiagency international investigations, including delays imposed when obtaining international legal process; and


WHEREAS, electronic or digital evidence associated with the Internet is fleeting in nature, and law enforcement officials must obtain timely access to this information to fulfill law enforcement duties; and


WHEREAS, criminals use the anonymity and international nature of the Internet, and the fleeting nature of electronic or digital evidence, to thwart law enforcement investigations; and


WHEREAS, publicly available databases containing information involving the allocation of Internet resources and who they are assigned to, such as Internet Protocol address space and domain names, are a critical tool used by law enforcement, and because these databases are public in nature, allow law enforcement agencies access to conduct investigations in the most timely manner possible; and


WHERAS, allocation of Internet resources is expanding rapidly due to impending exhaustion of Internet Protocol Version 4 address space and the subsequent and simultaneous implementation of Internet Protocol Version 6 as well as the implementation of numerous new top level domains by the Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), accurate and easily accessible registrant information is now even more important to law enforcement than in 2005 when the original resolution was adopted; and


WHEREAS, ICANN and its International members involved in the creation of policy consensus and administration of this information currently are considering new registrant data policy which may seek to restrict or eliminate fluid public access due to business, privacy, or data-mining concerns; and


WHEREAS, the elimination or restriction of easy fluid access to this information would severely cripple or eliminate the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct investigation in a timely manner; now therefore be it


RESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) strongly urges the related Internet administration communities, including governments, regional Internet registries, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet Service Providers, domain-name registries, domain-name registrars, and Internet service providers to assist law enforcement by providing continued access to publicly available databases concerning the allocation of Internet resources, and in situations where the maintenance of these databases may conflict with privacy regulation, business concerns, or data-mining prevention efforts, fully consult with the International law enforcement to assist in the resolution of these potential conflicts before removing or restricting law enforcement access to this critical information; and be it


FURTHER RESOLVED, that the IACP membership coordinate the above efforts to achieve the goal of providing consistent, equal, and uniform access to the above-referenced resources for all of the international law enforcement community.





**********************************


Greg Aaron


Vice-President, Product Management


iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com


mobile: +1.215.858.2257


**********************************


The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170302/f2be9e3b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2016 FINAL Resolutions.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 813767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170302/f2be9e3b/attachment.pdf>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar  3 04:55:03 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:55:03 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement
 association resolution regarding domain registration data
In-Reply-To: <IW7qahwpISvjiMKaO3WG5PTO2oFKkL8DiSZoMElJyNIXuYsOn4tC7oC9p6azDWkNFH7ERl_K89rfMSlIQim-EHcnF5R2aepkhxC3QfwS_HU=@ferdeline.com>
References: <BN6PR13MB1843C6C7B3551E92595FCB99D9280@BN6PR13MB1843.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
 <IW7qahwpISvjiMKaO3WG5PTO2oFKkL8DiSZoMElJyNIXuYsOn4tC7oC9p6azDWkNFH7ERl_K89rfMSlIQim-EHcnF5R2aepkhxC3QfwS_HU=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <2e30aa99-0b06-2423-04d4-d15ef6a5253c@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am thinking.  I recommend pushing the pause button.  I have fond 
memories of drafting speeches for my assistant deputy minister to attend 
the wretched Canadian Association of Police Chiefs Conference annually, 
and there was always a wish list from them of outrageous demands (ban 
radio scanners, ban radar scanners, stop allowing unlisted phone 
numbers, let us do cell tower scoops, etcetcetc.  I used to tell him, 
how about we start with you reading the Canadian Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms to them.....(pardon me, a brief stroll down memory lane).

I think a response is required.  These organizations are 
non-transparent.  Let's ask for the evidence for their allegations.  
this is about money, human intervention, and paperwork.  What about the 
risk to end users, the citizens they have sworn to protect?  where is 
their risk assessment and stats for that?

But get ready, this is just the opening salvo.  They have been preparing 
the flank attack over the past year while we toiled away on the 
committee.  Stock up on Red Bull, we are going to need it....

Stephanie

PS I will forward this to the data protection officer at Interpol.  She 
may have some advice.....


On 2017-03-02 15:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Grr... Should we react to this? Draft a statement condemning elements 
> of their resolution? Write them a letter putting forward our issues 
> with it, and suggest they join relevant PDPs if they wish to influence 
> the future of the RDS? Or take no action?
>
> - Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association 
>> resolution regarding domain registration data
>> Local Time: 2 March 2017 6:35 PM
>> UTC Time: 2 March 2017 18:35
>> From: gca at icginc.com
>> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>
>>
>> The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has issued 
>> an official resolution regarding domain name registration data.
>>
>>
>> The resolution requests that ICANN and related parties provide 
>> ?continued access to publicly available databases concerning the 
>> allocation of Internet resources, and in situations where the 
>> maintenance of these databases may conflict with privacy regulation, 
>> business concerns, or data-mining prevention efforts, fully consult 
>> with the International law enforcement to assist in the resolution of 
>> these potential conflicts before removing or restricting law 
>> enforcement access to this critical information; and? that IACP 
>> membership coordinate the above efforts to achieve the goal of 
>> providing consistent, equal, and uniform access to the 
>> above-referenced resources for all of the international law 
>> enforcement community.?
>>
>>
>> Founded in 1893, the IACP (www.iacp.org <http://www.iacp.org>)  is 
>> the professional association for law enforcement officers, with 
>> members in 133 countries worldwide, primarily leadership-level 
>> personnel in national, state/provincial, and local agencies.  "The 
>> Association's goals are to advance the science and art of police 
>> services; to develop and disseminate improved administrative, 
>> technical and operational practices and promote their use in police 
>> work; to foster police cooperation and the exchange of information 
>> and experience among police administrators throughout the 
>> world....and to encourage adherence of all police officers to high 
>> professional standards of performance and conduct."
>>
>>
>> The text of the full resolution is below and contains the rationales. 
>>  It notes that loss of access to the currently available data ?would 
>> severely cripple or eliminate the ability of law enforcement agencies 
>> to conduct investigation in a timely manner.?
>>
>>
>> The document is attached, and also at: 
>> http://www.theiacp.org/Resolutions <http://www.theiacp.org/Resolutions>
>>
>>
>> I kindly request that this be added to our bank of reference 
>> materials.  (Thanks, Lisa and Michelle.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Support for Law Enforcement Access to Publicly Available and Accurate 
>> Internet Address Registration Data to include privacy protected 
>> registrant information and related Forensic Resources to facilitate 
>> investigation of Cybercrime and Cyber Enabled Crime
>>
>> Submitted by: Communications and Technology Committee
>>
>> CTC.06.t16
>>
>> WHEREAS, this is an updated version of an expired 2005 adopted 
>> resolution then submitted by the Communications and Technology 
>> Committee as CT23.a05 and adopted at the 112th Annual Conference; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the lawful investigation of Internet communications is one 
>> of the most valuable tools available to law enforcement in 
>> identifying both the perpetrators and victims of crime; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Internet is global in nature, and as such, poses 
>> challenges when conducting multiagency international investigations, 
>> including delays imposed when obtaining international legal process; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, electronic or digital evidence associated with the Internet 
>> is fleeting in nature, and law enforcement officials must obtain 
>> timely access to this information to fulfill law enforcement duties; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, criminals use the anonymity and international nature of the 
>> Internet, and the fleeting nature of electronic or digital evidence, 
>> to thwart law enforcement investigations; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, publicly available databases containing information 
>> involving the allocation of Internet resources and who they are 
>> assigned to, such as Internet Protocol address space and domain 
>> names, are a critical tool used by law enforcement, and because these 
>> databases are public in nature, allow law enforcement agencies access 
>> to conduct investigations in the most timely manner possible; and
>>
>> WHERAS, allocation of Internet resources is expanding rapidly due to 
>> impending exhaustion of Internet Protocol Version 4 address space and 
>> the subsequent and simultaneous implementation of Internet Protocol 
>> Version 6 as well as the implementation of numerous new top level 
>> domains by the Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and 
>> Numbers (ICANN), accurate and easily accessible registrant 
>> information is now even more important to law enforcement than in 
>> 2005 when the original resolution was adopted; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, ICANN and its International members involved in the creation 
>> of policy consensus and administration of this information currently 
>> are considering new registrant data policy which may seek to restrict 
>> or eliminate fluid public access due to business, privacy, or 
>> data-mining concerns; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the elimination or restriction of easy fluid access to this 
>> information would severely cripple or eliminate the ability of law 
>> enforcement agencies to conduct investigation in a timely manner; now 
>> therefore be it
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police 
>> (IACP) strongly urges the related Internet administration 
>> communities, including governments, regional Internet registries, the 
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet Service 
>> Providers, domain-name registries, domain-name registrars, and 
>> Internet service providers to assist law enforcement by providing 
>> continued access to publicly available databases concerning the 
>> allocation of Internet resources, and in situations where the 
>> maintenance of these databases may conflict with privacy regulation, 
>> business concerns, or data-mining prevention efforts, fully consult 
>> with the International law enforcement to assist in the resolution of 
>> these potential conflicts before removing or restricting law 
>> enforcement access to this critical information; and be it
>>
>> FURTHER RESOLVED, that the IACP membership coordinate the above 
>> efforts to achieve the goal of providing consistent, equal, and 
>> uniform access to the above-referenced resources for all of the 
>> international law enforcement community.
>>
>>
>> **********************************
>>
>> Greg Aaron
>>
>> Vice-President, Product Management
>>
>> iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com
>>
>> mobile: +1.215.858.2257
>>
>> **********************************
>>
>> The information contained in this message is privileged and 
>> confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this 
>> message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent 
>> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, 
>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
>> replying to the message and deleting it from your 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/20170302/a3877dc7/attachment.htm>

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Fri Mar  3 05:22:30 2017
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:22:30 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement
 association resolution regarding domain registration data
In-Reply-To: <2e30aa99-0b06-2423-04d4-d15ef6a5253c@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <BN6PR13MB1843C6C7B3551E92595FCB99D9280@BN6PR13MB1843.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
 <IW7qahwpISvjiMKaO3WG5PTO2oFKkL8DiSZoMElJyNIXuYsOn4tC7oC9p6azDWkNFH7ERl_K89rfMSlIQim-EHcnF5R2aepkhxC3QfwS_HU=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e30aa99-0b06-2423-04d4-d15ef6a5253c@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <78dccff3-1b89-8761-0b8e-d5b7fbbacc95@kathykleiman.com>

I think Stephanie raises excellent points and a really good option. I 
like the idea of our writing a response - with her questions.

Best, Kathy


On 3/2/2017 9:55 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I am thinking.  I recommend pushing the pause button.  I have fond 
> memories of drafting speeches for my assistant deputy minister to 
> attend the wretched Canadian Association of Police Chiefs Conference 
> annually, and there was always a wish list from them of outrageous 
> demands (ban radio scanners, ban radar scanners, stop allowing 
> unlisted phone numbers, let us do cell tower scoops, etcetcetc.  I 
> used to tell him, how about we start with you reading the Canadian 
> Charter of Rights and Freedoms to them.....(pardon me, a brief stroll 
> down memory lane).
>
> I think a response is required.  These organizations are 
> non-transparent. Let's ask for the evidence for their allegations.  
> this is about money, human intervention, and paperwork.  What about 
> the risk to end users, the citizens they have sworn to protect?  where 
> is their risk assessment and stats for that?
>
> But get ready, this is just the opening salvo.  They have been 
> preparing the flank attack over the past year while we toiled away on 
> the committee.  Stock up on Red Bull, we are going to need it....
>
> Stephanie
>
> PS I will forward this to the data protection officer at Interpol.  
> She may have some advice.....
>
>
> On 2017-03-02 15:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> Grr... Should we react to this? Draft a statement condemning elements 
>> of their resolution? Write them a letter putting forward our issues 
>> with it, and suggest they join relevant PDPs if they wish to 
>> influence the future of the RDS? Or take no action?
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association 
>>> resolution regarding domain registration data
>>> Local Time: 2 March 2017 6:35 PM
>>> UTC Time: 2 March 2017 18:35
>>> From: gca at icginc.com
>>> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has issued 
>>> an official resolution regarding domain name registration data.
>>>
>>>
>>> The resolution requests that ICANN and related parties provide 
>>> ?continued access to publicly available databases concerning the 
>>> allocation of Internet resources, and in situations where the 
>>> maintenance of these databases may conflict with privacy regulation, 
>>> business concerns, or data-mining prevention efforts, fully consult 
>>> with the International law enforcement to assist in the resolution 
>>> of these potential conflicts before removing or restricting law 
>>> enforcement access to this critical information; and? that IACP 
>>> membership coordinate the above efforts to achieve the goal of 
>>> providing consistent, equal, and uniform access to the 
>>> above-referenced resources for all of the international law 
>>> enforcement community.?
>>>
>>>
>>> Founded in 1893, the IACP (www.iacp.org <http://www.iacp.org>)  is 
>>> the professional association for law enforcement officers, with 
>>> members in 133 countries worldwide, primarily leadership-level 
>>> personnel in national, state/provincial, and local agencies.  "The 
>>> Association's goals are to advance the science and art of police 
>>> services; to develop and disseminate improved administrative, 
>>> technical and operational practices and promote their use in police 
>>> work; to foster police cooperation and the exchange of information 
>>> and experience among police administrators throughout the 
>>> world....and to encourage adherence of all police officers to high 
>>> professional standards of performance and conduct."
>>>
>>>
>>> The text of the full resolution is below and contains the 
>>> rationales.  It notes that loss of access to the currently available 
>>> data ?would severely cripple or eliminate the ability of law 
>>> enforcement agencies to conduct investigation in a timely manner.?
>>>
>>>
>>> The document is attached, and also at: 
>>> http://www.theiacp.org/Resolutions <http://www.theiacp.org/Resolutions>
>>>
>>>
>>> I kindly request that this be added to our bank of reference 
>>> materials.  (Thanks, Lisa and Michelle.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Support for Law Enforcement Access to Publicly Available and 
>>> Accurate Internet Address Registration Data to include privacy 
>>> protected registrant information and related Forensic Resources to 
>>> facilitate investigation of Cybercrime and Cyber Enabled Crime
>>>
>>> Submitted by: Communications and Technology Committee
>>>
>>> CTC.06.t16
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, this is an updated version of an expired 2005 adopted 
>>> resolution then submitted by the Communications and Technology 
>>> Committee as CT23.a05 and adopted at the 112th Annual Conference; and
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, the lawful investigation of Internet communications is one 
>>> of the most valuable tools available to law enforcement in 
>>> identifying both the perpetrators and victims of crime; and
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, the Internet is global in nature, and as such, poses 
>>> challenges when conducting multiagency international investigations, 
>>> including delays imposed when obtaining international legal process; and
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, electronic or digital evidence associated with the Internet 
>>> is fleeting in nature, and law enforcement officials must obtain 
>>> timely access to this information to fulfill law enforcement duties; and
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, criminals use the anonymity and international nature of the 
>>> Internet, and the fleeting nature of electronic or digital evidence, 
>>> to thwart law enforcement investigations; and
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, publicly available databases containing information 
>>> involving the allocation of Internet resources and who they are 
>>> assigned to, such as Internet Protocol address space and domain 
>>> names, are a critical tool used by law enforcement, and because 
>>> these databases are public in nature, allow law enforcement agencies 
>>> access to conduct investigations in the most timely manner possible; and
>>>
>>> WHERAS, allocation of Internet resources is expanding rapidly due to 
>>> impending exhaustion of Internet Protocol Version 4 address space 
>>> and the subsequent and simultaneous implementation of Internet 
>>> Protocol Version 6 as well as the implementation of numerous new top 
>>> level domains by the Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and 
>>> Numbers (ICANN), accurate and easily accessible registrant 
>>> information is now even more important to law enforcement than in 
>>> 2005 when the original resolution was adopted; and
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, ICANN and its International members involved in the 
>>> creation of policy consensus and administration of this information 
>>> currently are considering new registrant data policy which may seek 
>>> to restrict or eliminate fluid public access due to business, 
>>> privacy, or data-mining concerns; and
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, the elimination or restriction of easy fluid access to this 
>>> information would severely cripple or eliminate the ability of law 
>>> enforcement agencies to conduct investigation in a timely manner; 
>>> now therefore be it
>>>
>>> RESOLVED, that the International Association of Chiefs of Police 
>>> (IACP) strongly urges the related Internet administration 
>>> communities, including governments, regional Internet registries, 
>>> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet 
>>> Service Providers, domain-name registries, domain-name registrars, 
>>> and Internet service providers to assist law enforcement by 
>>> providing continued access to publicly available databases 
>>> concerning the allocation of Internet resources, and in situations 
>>> where the maintenance of these databases may conflict with privacy 
>>> regulation, business concerns, or data-mining prevention efforts, 
>>> fully consult with the International law enforcement to assist in 
>>> the resolution of these potential conflicts before removing or 
>>> restricting law enforcement access to this critical information; and 
>>> be it
>>>
>>> FURTHER RESOLVED, that the IACP membership coordinate the above 
>>> efforts to achieve the goal of providing consistent, equal, and 
>>> uniform access to the above-referenced resources for all of the 
>>> international law enforcement community.
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************
>>>
>>> Greg Aaron
>>>
>>> Vice-President, Product Management
>>>
>>> iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com
>>>
>>> mobile: +1.215.858.2257
>>>
>>> **********************************
>>>
>>> The information contained in this message is privileged and 
>>> confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this 
>>> message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent 
>>> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, 
>>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
>>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately 
>>> by replying to the message and deleting it from your 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170302/d68ccffe/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Mar  3 09:22:08 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 09:22:08 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
Message-ID: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

NCSG EC has decided to terminate long-dormant Consumers' Constituency's
status as candidate constituency.

Consequently it is no longer entitled to representation in Policy
Committee and its last representative, Dorothy Gordon, should be
removed from this list. We can, however, invite her to stay as an
observer, and I'd like to suggest we do that. Opinions, objections?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Mar  4 04:20:26 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 21:20:26 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
In-Reply-To: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <61bdd20a-abee-b54a-798b-c628e4fcca20@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think that would be nice, v rude to say you are out, go.

Stephanie


On 2017-03-03 02:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> NCSG EC has decided to terminate long-dormant Consumers' Constituency's
> status as candidate constituency.
>
> Consequently it is no longer entitled to representation in Policy
> Committee and its last representative, Dorothy Gordon, should be
> removed from this list. We can, however, invite her to stay as an
> observer, and I'd like to suggest we do that. Opinions, objections?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170303/9f92d9e7/attachment.htm>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Sat Mar  4 04:32:08 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 21:32:08 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
In-Reply-To: <61bdd20a-abee-b54a-798b-c628e4fcca20@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>
 <61bdd20a-abee-b54a-798b-c628e4fcca20@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <468e1ccfbe4a48e4af83e170886742c0@toast.net>

I support Stephanie.
  
 I was actually leaning the other way, but she is absolutely right. We want 
to be inclusive. Dorothy has made some really neat contributions in the 
past, and I hope she will continue do so for our benefit. Besides, I don't 
like rude.
  
 I hope we allow Dorothy to remain on list.
  
  
 Ed

----------------------------------------
 From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 2:20 AM
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP   

I think that would be nice, v rude to say you are out, go.    

Stephanie      On 2017-03-03 02:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

 Dear all,  NCSG EC has decided to terminate long-dormant Consumers' 
Constituency's status as candidate constituency.  Consequently it is no 
longer entitled to representation in Policy Committee and its last 
representative, Dorothy Gordon, should be removed from this list. We can, 
however, invite her to stay as an observer, and I'd like to suggest we do 
that. Opinions, objections?    
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170303/5088d214/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Sat Mar  4 05:07:58 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 22:07:58 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
In-Reply-To: <468e1ccfbe4a48e4af83e170886742c0@toast.net>
References: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>
 <61bdd20a-abee-b54a-798b-c628e4fcca20@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <468e1ccfbe4a48e4af83e170886742c0@toast.net>
Message-ID: <f76f7af0-d4e9-ace7-bcbd-cc4f2cdf8912@cdt.org>

+1 - agree


On 03/03/2017 21:32, Edward Morris wrote:
> I support Stephanie.
> I was actually leaning the other way, but she is absolutely right. We 
> want to be inclusive. Dorothy has made some really neat contributions 
> in the past, and I hope she will continue do so for our benefit. 
> Besides, I don't like rude.
> I hope we allow Dorothy to remain on list.
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent*: Saturday, March 4, 2017 2:20 AM
> *To*: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
>
> I think that would be nice, v rude to say you are out, go.
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-03-03 02:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> NCSG EC has decided to terminate long-dormant Consumers' Constituency's
>> status as candidate constituency.
>>
>> Consequently it is no longer entitled to representation in Policy
>> Committee and its last representative, Dorothy Gordon, should be
>> removed from this list. We can, however, invite her to stay as an
>> observer, and I'd like to suggest we do that. Opinions, objections?
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170303/91e0e670/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Sat Mar  4 14:41:32 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 13:41:32 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
In-Reply-To: <f76f7af0-d4e9-ace7-bcbd-cc4f2cdf8912@cdt.org>
References: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>
 <61bdd20a-abee-b54a-798b-c628e4fcca20@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <468e1ccfbe4a48e4af83e170886742c0@toast.net>
 <f76f7af0-d4e9-ace7-bcbd-cc4f2cdf8912@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40vLFi30jxxkdL8f=JKktnbFyb=iWOFD1BLbqkea78dnyw@mail.gmail.com>

Supported +1

On 4 March 2017 at 04:07, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> +1 - agree
>
> On 03/03/2017 21:32, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> I support Stephanie.
>
> I was actually leaning the other way, but she is absolutely right. We want
> to be inclusive. Dorothy has made some really neat contributions in the
> past, and I hope she will continue do so for our benefit. Besides, I don't
> like rude.
>
> I hope we allow Dorothy to remain on list.
>
>
> Ed
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent*: Saturday, March 4, 2017 2:20 AM
> *To*: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
>
>
> I think that would be nice, v rude to say you are out, go.
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-03-03 02:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> NCSG EC has decided to terminate long-dormant Consumers' Constituency's
> status as candidate constituency.
>
> Consequently it is no longer entitled to representation in Policy
> Committee and its last representative, Dorothy Gordon, should be
> removed from this list. We can, however, invite her to stay as an
> observer, and I'd like to suggest we do that. Opinions, objections?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170304/adf539a7/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Sat Mar  4 16:27:42 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:27:42 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
In-Reply-To: <468e1ccfbe4a48e4af83e170886742c0@toast.net>
References: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>
 <61bdd20a-abee-b54a-798b-c628e4fcca20@mail.utoronto.ca>,
 <468e1ccfbe4a48e4af83e170886742c0@toast.net>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521EB45168B9C6733F37237F72A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Same here. I support the "not being rude" party. But especially in times of growing pressures on our group/constituencies, the more the merrier.
My two cents, Stefania



________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Inviato: sabato 4 marzo 2017 03.32.08
A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is; Stephanie Perrin
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP

I support Stephanie.

I was actually leaning the other way, but she is absolutely right. We want to be inclusive. Dorothy has made some really neat contributions in the past, and I hope she will continue do so for our benefit. Besides, I don't like rude.

I hope we allow Dorothy to remain on list.


Ed
________________________________
From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 2:20 AM
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP


I think that would be nice, v rude to say you are out, go.

Stephanie


On 2017-03-03 02:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:


Dear all,

NCSG EC has decided to terminate long-dormant Consumers' Constituency's
status as candidate constituency.

Consequently it is no longer entitled to representation in Policy
Committee and its last representative, Dorothy Gordon, should be
removed from this list. We can, however, invite her to stay as an
observer, and I'd like to suggest we do that. Opinions, objections?





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 icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Mar  4 22:44:02 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 15:44:02 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521EB45168B9C6733F37237F72A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>
 <61bdd20a-abee-b54a-798b-c628e4fcca20@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <468e1ccfbe4a48e4af83e170886742c0@toast.net>
 <DB3PR05MB521EB45168B9C6733F37237F72A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <yPn7JQ1BTw6RBioBYHkJGPcNzvwiOpjKrDXApF_Fcx4tUBeksWKFMbE19XzGJBtCFcsu9OlkzhsXA00wsrKmGbxo_zBpLQ_-bWn_zndIL5k=@ferdeline.com>

+1 Stefania



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
Local Time: 4 March 2017 2:27 PM
UTC Time: 4 March 2017 14:27
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, egmorris1 at toast.net <egmorris1 at toast.net>

Same here. I support the "not being rude" party. But especially in times of growing pressures on our group/constituencies, the more the merrier.
My two cents, Stefania



________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Inviato: sabato 4 marzo 2017 03.32.08
A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is; Stephanie Perrin
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP

I support Stephanie.

I was actually leaning the other way, but she is absolutely right. We want to be inclusive. Dorothy has made some really neat contributions in the past, and I hope she will continue do so for our benefit. Besides, I don't like rude.

I hope we allow Dorothy to remain on list.


Ed
________________________________
From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 2:20 AM
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP


I think that would be nice, v rude to say you are out, go.

Stephanie


On 2017-03-03 02:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:


Dear all,

NCSG EC has decided to terminate long-dormant Consumers' Constituency's
status as candidate constituency.

Consequently it is no longer entitled to representation in Policy
Committee and its last representative, Dorothy Gordon, should be
removed from this list. We can, however, invite her to stay as an
observer, and I'd like to suggest we do that. Opinions, objections?





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/20170304/8e9139d8/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Sat Mar  4 23:40:59 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 16:40:59 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521EB45168B9C6733F37237F72A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170303072208.xlck2nezsyh6k5ge@tarvainen.info>
 <61bdd20a-abee-b54a-798b-c628e4fcca20@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <468e1ccfbe4a48e4af83e170886742c0@toast.net>
 <DB3PR05MB521EB45168B9C6733F37237F72A0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <8f238c01-468c-b572-af3e-5a4d704bf261@apc.org>

i too support the  "not being rude" party and think we should invite
Dorothy to remain an observer in the PC.

avr


On 04-Mar-17 09:27, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> Same here. I support the "not being rude" party. But especially in times of growing pressures on our group/constituencies, the more the merrier.
> My two cents, Stefania
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> Inviato: sabato 4 marzo 2017 03.32.08
> A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is; Stephanie Perrin
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
>
> I support Stephanie.
>
> I was actually leaning the other way, but she is absolutely right. We want to be inclusive. Dorothy has made some really neat contributions in the past, and I hope she will continue do so for our benefit. Besides, I don't like rude.
>
> I hope we allow Dorothy to remain on list.
>
>
> Ed
> ________________________________
> From: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 2:20 AM
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Consumers' Constituency RIP
>
>
> I think that would be nice, v rude to say you are out, go.
>
> Stephanie
>
>
> On 2017-03-03 02:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> NCSG EC has decided to terminate long-dormant Consumers' Constituency's
> status as candidate constituency.
>
> Consequently it is no longer entitled to representation in Policy
> Committee and its last representative, Dorothy Gordon, should be
> removed from this list. We can, however, invite her to stay as an
> observer, and I'd like to suggest we do that. Opinions, objections?
>
>
>
>
>
> 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


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



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Sun Mar  5 17:59:37 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 17:59:37 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Schedule change for PC meeting in Copenhagen
Message-ID: <20170305155937.pu6uvmwoiqsos6np@tarvainen.info>

Dear Policy Committee members,

As some of you have no doubt noticed, PC meeting in Copenhagen was
scheduled to overlap with GNSO working session, which rather
obviously would make no sense, councillors must be in both.

For whatever reason, our request to change this (which we did
well before the schedule was published) was lost or ignored.

After some ... negotiation we got a new time for it, not ideal but
best we could do under the circumstances: Sunday 17-19.

This hasn't made it to the public schedule (and I'm not sure
it ever will), but do make a note of it for you own plans.

Thank you,

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Mar  5 18:48:08 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 11:48:08 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Schedule change for PC meeting in Copenhagen
In-Reply-To: <20170305155937.pu6uvmwoiqsos6np@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170305155937.pu6uvmwoiqsos6np@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <P_3rZ6B21yQcjTsq1vXv3ED90FhfEJhcsf5yV5Q8R329M93WPj11wjAl7J9wlsXDFg4T2HtxpmoazDwhJeXdR5GEs-3gxGI513qKq-xzWbU=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks, Tapani. Noted.



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Schedule change for PC meeting in Copenhagen
Local Time: 5 March 2017 3:59 PM
UTC Time: 5 March 2017 15:59
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Dear Policy Committee members,

As some of you have no doubt noticed, PC meeting in Copenhagen was
scheduled to overlap with GNSO working session, which rather
obviously would make no sense, councillors must be in both.

For whatever reason, our request to change this (which we did
well before the schedule was published) was lost or ignored.

After some ... negotiation we got a new time for it, not ideal but
best we could do under the circumstances: Sunday 17-19.

This hasn't made it to the public schedule (and I'm not sure
it ever will), but do make a note of it for you own plans.

Thank you,

--
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/20170305/6e6731b1/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Mar  6 14:32:43 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 21:32:43 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Schedule change for PC meeting in Copenhagen
In-Reply-To: <20170305155937.pu6uvmwoiqsos6np@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170305155937.pu6uvmwoiqsos6np@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk8nDT11uiypCaaMgnbBJUgQkdgtjeUfgmL4qJM9FKcjg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ,

Thanks Tapani for the announcement.
we have less than 1 week to agree on the agenda for the PC meeting. We got
2hours and maybe less in fact.

we will, of course, go through the GNSO council public meeting agenda and
discuss the motions and the votes.
we also have the board seat election and we may set some time for that
(reminder we need to nominate candidates and write down the procedures for
future and for documentation purpose). we can also cover other topics like
compliance and agree on some follow-up with regard to PDPs and joint
meetings.
it will be challenging to cover all but we can at least agree in how to
follow-up and concrete actions for them.
Please share your thoughts and suggestions for policy discussion.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-06 0:59 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:

> Dear Policy Committee members,
>
> As some of you have no doubt noticed, PC meeting in Copenhagen was
> scheduled to overlap with GNSO working session, which rather
> obviously would make no sense, councillors must be in both.
>
> For whatever reason, our request to change this (which we did
> well before the schedule was published) was lost or ignored.
>
> After some ... negotiation we got a new time for it, not ideal but
> best we could do under the circumstances: Sunday 17-19.
>
> This hasn't made it to the public schedule (and I'm not sure
> it ever will), but do make a note of it for you own plans.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> 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/20170306/967dcde4/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Mar  7 01:44:16 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:44:16 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Agenda for PC meeting / Sunday 12th March 17:00 Copehangen
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn0fhRdESnU20LNujLhy8MUAYDm1KGgycVi7Dj=-J+EhQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

as I shared in a previous email, we have to plan for our policy committee
session this Sunday.

as draft agenda and open for discussion and amendments:

1- Review of GNSO council agenda
     - Motions discussions/voting
2- Topics for discussions:
    - Board seat election: process and timeline
    - Ongoing PDPs: any reports from the Saturday sessions
    - Workstream 2: any reports from full-day meeting
    - meeting with Data Protection Commissioners prep (TBC)
    - Public consultation: any statement from NCSG
3- AOB

We should have action items to follow-up those discussions.

if we cannot cover all topics, we may meet informally during the week and
take notes of our discussions, sharing them in PC list for record. We also
have NCSG CD  and I would like to ask Tapani if we can cover remaining
topics in that day without jeopardizing other agenda topics.

Best,

Rafik

for reference I copied the Council agenda below:



*Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)*



1.1 - Roll Call



1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest



1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda



1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the
GNSO Operating Procedures:



Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 19 January 2017, posted on 10
February 2017.

Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 16 February 2017, will be
posted on 8 March 2017.





*Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)*



2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
topics, to include review of Projects List
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List
<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>





*Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins)*



*3.1 ? Confirmation of GNSO Co-Chair for the Cross Community Working Group
on New gTLD Auction Proceeds*



In November 2016, the GNSO Council had approved the Charter for the new
Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on New gTLD Auction Proceeds and
appointed Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO co-chair to the group in December
2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161215-1). On 9
February 2017, Jonathan Robinson informed the CCWG and the Council that he
will be stepping down as GNSO co-chair, and requested that the Council
appoint a successor as soon as is reasonably possible (http://mm.icann.org/
pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-February/000080.html). As directed by
the Council following its meeting on 16 February, staff issued a Call for
Volunteers on 1 March (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/
019785.html). Councilor Erika Mann responded to the Call and volunteered
her services (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019786.html)
Here the Council will discuss and, if appropriate, approve Erika?s
candidacy for appointment as the new GNSO co-chair to this CCWG.



*Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE ? Approval of Charter for a New GNSO Standing
Selection Committee (15 minutes)*

On 13 December 2016, Councilors Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris circulated
for the Council?s consideration a draft document proposing a set of
criteria and a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to
future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the
ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to
appoint, nominate or endorse candidates (https://gnso.icann.org/en/
drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf). Following further work
on the draft document by Susan, Ed and the Council leadership, a proposed
Charter to create a GNSO Standing Selection Committee that will conduct
future selections based on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented
process was circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019734.html) and
discussed at the Council meeting on 16 February. Here the Council is
expected to complete its discussions on the remaining open items regarding
the draft Charter, and vote on a motion to create the new GNSO Standing
Selection Committee.

If the new Committee is established, its initial tasks are expected to
include proposing a slate of GNSO nominees for the upcoming Registration
Directory Services and Accountability and Transparency Review Teams, as
well as possibly assisting with the proposed establishment of a Standing
Panel for Independent Review Processes (see Agenda Item 6, below).

4.1 ? Presentation of motion (James Bladel) https://community.icann.org/x/
lJvRAw

4.2 ? Council and community discussion

4.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)







*Item 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Updated Charter for the Cross Community
Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes)*



At its Public Meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India, on 7 November 2016,
the GNSO Council had approved a motion conditioning the future
participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization of the CCWG on
Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) upon a comprehensive review of the group?s
Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with the Framework of Uniform
Principles for CCWGs that had been adopted recently by the ccNSO and GNSO
Councils (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-
principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In its resolution, the GNSO
Council had noted that the CCWG-IG?s future work is expected to be subject
to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables, and had
requested that, by ICANN58, the CCWG-IG was to report on its findings,
which report may include a revised charter or a recommendation to
reconstitute the group under a new structure
(https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions
- 20161107-3 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-3>).



Here the Council will receive an update and report from the CCWG-IG
co-chairs, and discuss next steps in relation to the GNSO?s continued
participation as a Chartering Organization of this CCWG.



5.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-IG co-chairs)



5.2 ? Council and community discussion



5.3 ? Next steps



*Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Activities of the CCWG-Accountability
Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (15 minutes)*



On 28 February 2017, the Independent Review Process Implementation
Oversight Team (IRP IOT) of the ongoing CCWG-Accountability informed all
ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) that SO/ACs
will shortly be expected to work with ICANN to establish a Standing Panel
for future IRPs brought under the revised ICANN Bylaws (
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019790.html) This is a
four-step process that needs to be completed in order for the
newly-constituted IRP under the revised ICANN Bylaws to be used. Here the
Council will receive an update from the GNSO?s participants in the IRP IOT,
and discuss next steps in relation to this request and any additional
actions that are expected to be forthcoming in the near term for the GNSO
Council and community.



6.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-Accountability IRT IOT representatives)



6.2 ? Council and community discussion



6.3 ? Next steps



*Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposed Council Request in relation to
Letter from Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (10 minutes)*

On 15 December 2016, the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) sent
a letter to the GNSO Council describing a number of privacy law
developments and how the IRT has considered them (see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf).
The letter noted that the IRT?s implementation plan has been published for
public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-
implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en) and that the
IRT does not currently expect the developments in question to affect the
timeline for transition to thick WHOIS. The Council discussed the letter at
its meeting on 19 January 2017, at which Councilors Erika Mann and Michele
Neylon volunteered to draft a possible response to the IRT from the Council
for Council consideration. On 2 February 2017, Councilor Erika Mann
circulated a draft Council request for an update on the legal review that
had been done previously (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-
February/019729.html). Here the Council will continue its discussion of the
draft request with a view toward deciding on its further actions on this
topic, including whether and when to request the update, and whether the
scope of the request (if one is to be sent) should remain unchanged from
the previous legal review.

7.1 ? Status summary (Council Chairs and Erika Mann)

7.2 ? Council and community discussion

7.3 ? Next steps



*Item 8: JOINT DISCUSSION ? Meeting with ICANN?s Global Domains Division
(30 minutes)*



At previous ICANN Public Meetings, the GNSO Council and community had held
regular discussion sessions with senior staff from ICANN?s Global Domains
Division (GDD). This section of the Council?s Public Meeting at ICANN58 has
been added to allow the GNSO community to interact with GDD senior staff,
to discuss topics of current interest to the GNSO.



8.1 ? Introductions (Council Chairs and GDD senior staff)



8.2 ? Open discussion



*Item 9: OPEN MICROPHONE & ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/16ba07f7/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Mar  7 12:52:45 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 19:52:45 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board seat
election by this Friday.

We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
and documenting the process.

I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
proactive.


Best,

Rafik

On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act quickly
on it.
I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Thanks Rafik.
>
> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
> members of the PC?
>
> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
> understand the process.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
> Selection Process
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also our
> suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>
>> so we have now:
>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>
>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>
>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two
>>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>> house.
>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>     against NOTA
>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>     our act together.
>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>     get our act together.
>>
>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>> 2017-02-24
>>  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>
>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>
>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>> two
>>
>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>     against NOTA
>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>     our act together.
>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>     get our act together.
>>>
>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>> >
>>> > I guess we say:
>>> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>> > parallel starting next week Monday
>>> > - Our counter-proposal is:
>>> >
>>> >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>> >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>> >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>> >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>> >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>>> >     NOTA
>>> >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>> >     get our act together.
>>> >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>> >     get our act together.
>>> >
>>> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>> CSG.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> >
>>> > Rafik
>>> >
>>> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>> >
>>> >     Hi,
>>> >
>>> >     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>> >
>>> >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>> >
>>> >     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>> >     succeed.
>>> >
>>> >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>> >
>>> >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>> >
>>> >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>> >     against NOTA
>>> >
>>> >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get
>>> our
>>> >     act together.
>>> >
>>> >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>> >     we get
>>> >     our act together.
>>> >
>>> >     avri
>>> >
>>> >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>> considering/or
>>> >     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>> >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>>> >     week?
>>> >     >
>>> >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>> >     week?  or
>>> >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>> >     CSG and
>>> >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>>> >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Matthew
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> >     >> Hi all,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>> >     quickly. at
>>> >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> Best,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> Rafik
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> >>>:
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     Hi Matt,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>>> >     topic.
>>> >     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>> >     process
>>> >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>> >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>>> for
>>> >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
>>> we
>>> >     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>> press
>>> >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which
>>> are
>>> >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     Best,
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     Rafik
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>> >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>> >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>> >     with it
>>> >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>>> >     which
>>> >     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>> general
>>> >     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>> >     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>> different
>>> >     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>> >     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>> >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>> >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>> the
>>> >     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>> >     proposal
>>> >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>> >     to be
>>> >     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>> >     process and
>>> >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so
>>> at
>>> >     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         Matthew
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>>> >     board
>>> >     >>>         seat election.
>>> >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>> >     or not
>>> >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>> attended
>>> >     >>>         intersessional?
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>> points
>>> >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>> >     from our
>>> >     >>>         expectations.
>>> >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>> >     by end
>>> >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         Best,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         Rafik
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>> >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>> >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>> >     Selection Process
>>> >     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>> >     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>> >     >>>         Cc:
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             All,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to finish
>>> >     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>>> >     small
>>> >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>>> >     this
>>> >     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides of
>>> the
>>> >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>> we've
>>> >     >>>             already started the process without knowing what
>>> it is
>>> >     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures
>>> >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>> >     following
>>> >     >>>             for consideration:
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>> >     CSG and
>>> >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>> >     process.
>>> >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>> with a
>>> >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>>> from
>>> >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>> >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section
>>> >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>> Seats
>>> >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>> >     Bylaws), and
>>> >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>> >     11.3(f).
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
>>> go
>>> >     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>> >     weeks
>>> >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>> >     airplane
>>> >     >>>             in the air.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>> >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>> any
>>> >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>> >     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done so,
>>> we
>>> >     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations
>>> ASAP
>>> >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>> >     >>>             nomination period).
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>>> and
>>> >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>>> >     when
>>> >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>> >     agreed
>>> >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>> >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process as
>>> >     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need to
>>> get
>>> >     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
>>> to
>>> >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>> >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>> >     that and
>>> >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>> >     arrange a
>>> >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>> >     forward.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             Greg
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got here,
>>> but
>>> >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>> >     Procedures
>>> >     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>> deadline
>>> >     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one month
>>> to
>>> >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>> >     being
>>> >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>> >     updated in
>>> >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>> >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>>> >     error.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>> >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>> >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>> >     Selection Process
>>> >     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>> >     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed
>>> >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>> the
>>> >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>> House.
>>> >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>> changes
>>> >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>> >     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>> (but
>>> >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>>> >     >>>             rights):
>>> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>> Board
>>> >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>> >     making it
>>> >     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>> >     the IPC,
>>> >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>> discussion on
>>> >     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we have
>>> for
>>> >     >>>             this year.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             Thanks!
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>> Teams)
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>> >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>             _______________________________________________
>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>> >     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>> >     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>
>>> >     >>>         _______________________________________________
>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> >     <mailto: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>
>>> >     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>> >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >>         --
>>> >     >>         ------------
>>> >     >>         Matthew Shears
>>> >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> >     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>> >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>> >     >>
>>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>>> >     >> 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>
>>> >     > --
>>> >     > ------------
>>> >     > Matthew Shears
>>> >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> >     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>> >     >
>>> >     > _______________________________________________
>>> >     > 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>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     ---
>>> >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>> software.
>>> >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>> >
>>> >     _______________________________________________
>>> >     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>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/f2b44c13/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar  7 15:18:17 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:18:17 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <de56e91a-dc6d-fe8f-d7c3-c6f9b6d76b73@mail.utoronto.ca>

May I kick this off and nominate Matthew Shears?

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-03-07 05:52, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board 
> seat election by this Friday.
>
> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: 
> nominating and documenting the process.
>
> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not 
> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by 
> PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be 
> proactive.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Ed,
>
>     Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and
>     act quickly on it.
>     I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but
>     looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get
>     nominees.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Rafik
>
>     2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>
>         Thanks Rafik.
>         One question; Are nominations within our group to be self
>         nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the
>         general membership or just members of the PC?
>         I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't
>         been involved in the Board selection process before and would
>         just like to fully understand the process.
>         Kind Regards,
>         Ed
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>         <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>         *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>         *To*: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org
>         <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>         *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>         *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board
>         Seat Selection Process
>         Hi everyone,
>         since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG
>         and also our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st
>         March to 10th March .
>         Best,
>         Rafik
>         2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>
>             Hi Avri,
>             thanks for the suggestion,
>             so we have now:
>             - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>             - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>             parallel starting (Wednesday?)
>
>             Our counter-proposal is:
>
>               * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>               * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>             succeed.
>               * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>               * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round
>             between top two
>             * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with
>             the whole house.
>               * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round
>             of leader
>                 against NOTA
>               * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat
>             open until we get
>                 our act together.
>               *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA 
>             talk until we
>                 get our act together.
>
>             we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and
>             document that.
>             can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and
>             respond ot CSG?
>             Best,
>             Rafik
>             2017-02-24
>              21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org
>             <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>
>
>
>                 some minor typo corrections
>
>                 Our counter-proposal is:
>
>                   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8
>                 to succeed.
>                   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
>                 round between top two 
>
>                 * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd
>                 round of leader
>                     against NOTA
>                   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat
>                 open until we get
>                     our act together.
>                   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>                 NCA  talk until we
>                     get our act together.
>
>                 On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                 > Hi,
>                 >
>                 > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>                 >
>                 > I guess we say:
>                 > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>                 > - However, we can start the nomination process, for
>                 NCSG and CSG in
>                 > parallel starting next week Monday
>                 > - Our counter-proposal is:
>                 >
>                 >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                 >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines -
>                 8 to succeed.
>                 >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                 >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round
>                 between top two
>                 >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round
>                 of leader against
>                 >     NOTA
>                 >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
>                 seat open until we
>                 >     get our act together.
>                 >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>                 NCA  talk until we
>                 >   get our act together.
>                 >
>                 > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share
>                 our response with CSG.
>                 >
>                 > Best,
>                 >
>                 > Rafik
>                 >
>                 > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org
>                 <mailto:avri at apc.org> <mailto:avri at apc.org
>                 <mailto:avri at apc.org>>>:
>                 >
>                 >     Hi,
>                 >
>                 >     I think we could respond that we do not accept
>                 their proposal
>                 >
>                 >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                 >
>                 >     - we insist that there be a vote along the
>                 previous lines - 8 to
>                 >  succeed.
>                 >
>                 >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                 >
>                 >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second
>                 round between top two
>                 >
>                 >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd
>                 round of leader
>                 >  against NOTA
>                 >
>                 >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat
>                 open until we get our
>                 >     act together.
>                 >
>                 >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>                 NCA  talk until
>                 >     we get
>                 >     our act together.
>                 >
>                 >     avri
>                 >
>                 >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>                 >     >
>                 >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say
>                 we are considering/or
>                 >     > not their doc and will be proposing something
>                 or an alternative
>                 >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us -
>                 maybe end of next
>                 >     week?
>                 >     >
>                 >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination
>                 period - say next
>                 >  week?  or
>                 >     > two weeks from Monday?  Probably would be
>                 useful to have the
>                 >     CSG and
>                 >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree
>                 with CSG whether
>                 >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>                 >     >
>                 >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>                 >     >
>                 >     > Matthew
>                 >     >
>                 >     >
>                 >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                 >  >> Hi all,
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >> we really need to develop our response or
>                 proposal to CSG
>                 >  quickly. at
>                 >  >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >> Best,
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >> Rafik
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>                 <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>                 >  <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>                 >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>:
>                 >   >>
>                 >  >>     Hi Matt,
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>  thanks for the response, looking for other
>                 comments on this
>                 >     topic.
>                 >  >>     I think we can start with nomination whole
>                 we work on the
>                 >     process
>                 >  >>  and adjust the whole timeline.
>                 >  >>  how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2
>                 candidates for
>                 >  >>  now. shall we initiate a process to find other
>                 candidates? we
>                 >  >>  don't have so much time for a long nomination
>                 period.
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>     I understand that we are having the deadline
>                 as a mean to press
>                 >  >>     us but we should stand and be clear about
>                 the aspects which are
>                 >  >>  non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>  Best,
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>  Rafik
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>  2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears
>                 <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>                 >  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>                 >     >>    <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
>                 <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
>                 <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>>:
>                 >   >>
>                 >  >>    Thanks Rafik
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>    Not sure much was agreed except that we need
>                 to deal
>                 >     with it
>                 >  >>    and we are running out of time.
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>    First we had the timeline from Greg before
>                 the meeting,
>                 >     which
>                 >  >>    was not really discussed further.  Then we
>                 had some general
>                 >  >>    discussion about the need to do something on
>                 the Board
>                 >  >>    selection process. People voiced their views
>                 on different
>                 >  >>    aspects of the process and there was concern
>                 over the
>                 >  >>    timeline, but we did not really decide
>                 anything (others
>                 >  >>    please jump in as I may have missed some
>                 important
>                 >  >>    aspects).  Markus announced he wanted to
>                 continue in the
>                 >  >>    role; I announced I was going to run.  Then
>                 the CSG
>                 >  proposal
>                 >  >>    for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.
>                 There seemed
>                 >     to be
>                 >  >>    general agreement that the CSG proposal was
>                 not ideal.
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>    I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>                 >  process and
>                 >  >>    timeline for nominations and getting that
>                 announced, so at
>                 >  >>    least the initial stages of the process are
>                 underway.
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>    Matthew
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>    On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                 >  >>>        Hi everyone,
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>        We got this note from Greg to resume the
>                 discussion on
>                 >     board
>                 >  >>>        seat election.
>                 >  >>>        First thing, is it possible to get a
>                 summary of what
>                 >     or not
>                 >  >>>        agreed on iceland on that regard from
>                 those who attended
>                 >  >>>  intersessional?
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>        We also need to outline what are our
>                 non-negotiable points
>                 >  >>>        such as having vote, NCA participation
>                 and so on.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>        I think tgat the CSG proposal from last
>                 week is far
>                 >     from our
>                 >  >>>  expectations.
>                 >  >>>        There is also proposal to have a call.
>                 We can have it
>                 >     by end
>                 >  >>>        of this week but we do need to be ready.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>        Best,
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>        Rafik
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>                 >  >>>        From: "Greg Shatan"
>                 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                 >   >>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
>                 >  >>>      Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>                 >  >>>      Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>                 >  Selection Process
>                 >  >>>      To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                 > >>>  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>>
>                 >  >>>        Cc:
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  All,
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            We probably need a different mailing
>                 list to finish
>                 >  >>>  working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>                 >     small
>                 >  >>>  group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>                 >     this
>                 >  >>>            is the only active mailing list with
>                 both sides of the
>                 >  >>>  NCPH on it.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            We basically have no time to work
>                 this out, and we've
>                 >  >>>  already started the process without knowing
>                 what it is
>                 >  >>>  exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            In addition to the adaptation of the
>                 CPH procedures
>                 >  >>>  previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>                 >  following
>                 >  >>>            for consideration:
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            1. Some bullet-points from an
>                 exchange between
>                 >     CSG and
>                 >  >>>  NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>                 >  process.
>                 >  >>>            2. The latest version of the ICANN
>                 Staff Memo with a
>                 >  >>>  revised draft timeline and some relevant
>                 excerpts from
>                 >  >>>  Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>                 >  >>>            3. A further excerpt from the
>                 Bylaws, with Section
>                 >  >>>  11.3(f), which covers the selection process
>                 for Seats
>                 >  >>>  13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>                 >  Bylaws), and
>                 >  >>>  Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>                 >  11.3(f).
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            A few thoughts and comments:
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both
>                 develop and go
>                 >  >>>  through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>                 >     weeks
>                 >  >>>  (just to go through). Talk about building the
>                 >  airplane
>                 >  >>>            in the air.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            B. At the Intersessional, we
>                 discussed possible
>                 >  >>>  adjustments to the timeline, but did not come
>                 to any
>                 >  >>>  decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>                 >  >>>  preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            C. If any of our groups have not
>                 already done so, we
>                 >  >>>  should put out a call for any other
>                 nominations ASAP
>                 >  >>>  (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>                 >  >>>  nomination period).
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            D. Without making any judgments, the
>                 CPH process and
>                 >  >>>            the NCPH bullet-points are
>                 significantly different
>                 >     when
>                 >  >>>            it comes to voting.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            E. We should figure out how to get
>                 this process
>                 >  agreed
>                 >  >>>            as quickly as possible. Given the
>                 unusual
>                 >  >>>  circumstances, we don't need to use this
>                 process as
>                 >  >>>  precedent for any future process.  We just
>                 need to get
>                 >  >>>  through this selection. One approach is for
>                 NCSG to
>                 >  >>>  respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>                 >  >>>  Intersessional. However, given the gap between
>                 >     that and
>                 >  >>>            the bullet-points, it might just be
>                 better to
>                 >  arrange a
>                 >  >>>  call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>                 >  forward.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  Thanks for reading,
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  Greg
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
>                 here, but
>                 >  >>>  nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>                 >  Procedures
>                 >  >>>  were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>                 deadline
>                 >  >>>            for naming the Director was changed
>                 from one month to
>                 >  >>>            two months (briefly) and then six
>                 months prior to
>                 >     being
>                 >  >>>  seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>                 >  updated in
>                 >  >>>            any event, since the Bylaws
>                 references are now
>                 >  >>>  obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this
>                 >  error.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            B. Since we are doing this with very
>                 little time
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  *Greg Shatan
>                 >  >>>            *C: 917-816-6428
>                 >  >>>            S: gsshatan
>                 >  >>>  Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>                 >  >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >   <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>                 >  >>>          From: *Greg Shatan*
>                 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                 >   >>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
>                 >  >>>          Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>                 >  >>>  Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>                 >  Selection Process
>                 >  >>>          To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                 >  >>>      
>                  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >   <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            The CSG prepared a "discussion
>                 draft" of a proposed
>                 >  >>>  interim Board Selection Process based closely
>                 on the
>                 >  >>>  Final Process adopted by the Contracted
>                 Parties House.
>                 >  >>>  Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>                 changes
>                 >  >>>  from the CPH document.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            A Google Docs version can be found
>                 here, where any
>                 >  >>>  suggested changes can be added in "suggest"
>                 mode (but
>                 >  >>>  everyone has "edit"
>                 >  >>>  rights):
>                 >
>                 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>                 >   
>                  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >     
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>                 >   
>                  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            We would hope to use this for the
>                 current 2017 Board
>                 >  >>>  Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>                 >  making it
>                 >  >>>            a permanent rather than "interim"
>                 process.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>                 >     the IPC,
>                 >  >>>            BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start
>                 the discussion on
>                 >  >>>  this basis, given the short amount of time we
>                 have for
>                 >  >>>  this year.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>            We look forward to your thoughts.
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  Thanks!
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>                 Teams)
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  *Greg Shatan
>                 >  >>>            *C: 917-816-6428
>                 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>                 >  >>>            S: gsshatan
>                 >  >>>  Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>                 >  <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>                 >  >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >   <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  _______________________________________________
>                 >  >>>  Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>                 >  >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >  <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                 >  >>>      
>                  <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >   <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >
>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>                 >   
>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>                 >  >>>        
>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>                 >   
>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>
>                 >  >>>  _______________________________________________
>                 >  >>>      NCSG-PC mailing list
>                 >  >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
>                 >  <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto: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>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                 >  >>>    
>                  <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>>
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >>  --
>                 >  >>  ------------
>                 >  >>  Matthew Shears
>                 >  >>  Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>                 >  >>  Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>                 >     >> + 44 771 2472987
>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                 > <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>                 >  >>
>                 >  >> _______________________________________________
>                 >  >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>                 >  >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto: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>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                 >     > --
>                 >     > ------------
>                 >     > Matthew Shears
>                 >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>                 >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>                 >     > + 44 771 2472987
>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                 >   >
>                 >     > _______________________________________________
>                 >     > NCSG-PC mailing list
>                 >     > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto: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>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                 >
>                 >
>                 >   ---
>                 >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>                 antivirus software.
>                 > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>>
>                 >
>                 >  _______________________________________________
>                 >     NCSG-PC mailing list
>                 >NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto: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>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                 >
>                 >
>
>                 ---
>                 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>                 antivirus software.
>                 https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170307/b9502d7d/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Mar  7 15:36:38 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:36:38 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <58b5573d.8e121c0a.d5650.a6a1@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <20170307133638.GB28237@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Dear all,

Apologies for running late with this, but looking at the discussion
and considering we don't have all much time and this is (hopefully)
beginning of a tradition, we really should be talking more with R*SGs,
I propose short agendas (first item is same in both):


RrSG:

* Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
  how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.

* Privacy concerns:
- RDS, conflicts with law, thick WHOIS
- PPSAI, way forward, how to accommodate GAC objections

* DNA, Healthy Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals


RySG:

* Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
  how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.

* The New gTLD program:
- how has it impacted your group, brand owners becoming registries,
  registries and registrars commingling &c
- the imposition of new rules on legacy gTLDs when contracts are
  renegotiated: why and how?


-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Mar  7 15:48:49 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:48:49 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
Message-ID: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Dear Councillors,

Amr Elsadr was one of NCSG's representatives in the Bylaws
Drafting Team and as he moved to staff he should be replaced.

The council resolution creating the DT put it upon council
members to identify volunteers, so it's up to you now to
find replacement for Amr. I would suggest it'd be good for
it to be a councillor, although that's not required.

For reference:

Council resolution creating the DT:

https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/GNSO+Bylaws+Implementation+Drafting+Team+Home

First message to the DT mailing list:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/2016-August/000000.html

DT Home:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Mar  7 15:57:08 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:57:08 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
In-Reply-To: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnZrPEQ+L57sa_h_DVPVUhoBDod8DJAy_JTez_QuB23Og@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani,

Thanks for the info.
it seems that PC has to move quickly here since the next meeting for the DT
is in Copenhagen next week.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-07 22:48 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:

> Dear Councillors,
>
> Amr Elsadr was one of NCSG's representatives in the Bylaws
> Drafting Team and as he moved to staff he should be replaced.
>
> The council resolution creating the DT put it upon council
> members to identify volunteers, so it's up to you now to
> find replacement for Amr. I would suggest it'd be good for
> it to be a councillor, although that's not required.
>
> For reference:
>
> Council resolution creating the DT:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/GNSO+Bylaws+
> Implementation+Drafting+Team+Home
>
> First message to the DT mailing list:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/2016-August/000000.html
>
> DT Home:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2
>
> --
> 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/20170307/be93beaf/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Tue Mar  7 15:57:56 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:57:56 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
In-Reply-To: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB52159FCE42EB116D97CE9BFF72F0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Tapani, PC colleagues
I am up for the job in Copenhagen (to start with?)
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 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Inviato: marted? 7 marzo 2017 14.48.49
A: ncsg-pc
Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT

Dear Councillors,

Amr Elsadr was one of NCSG's representatives in the Bylaws
Drafting Team and as he moved to staff he should be replaced.

The council resolution creating the DT put it upon council
members to identify volunteers, so it's up to you now to
find replacement for Amr. I would suggest it'd be good for
it to be a councillor, although that's not required.

For reference:

Council resolution creating the DT:

https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/GNSO+Bylaws+Implementation+Drafting+Team+Home

First message to the DT mailing list:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/2016-August/000000.html

DT Home:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2

--
Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
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 avri at apc.org  Tue Mar  7 17:13:28 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:13:28 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d0b0be51-88db-de26-7040-6562d0fc0f6f@apc.org>

Hi,

I would like to Nominate Markus Kummer for a second term. I believe that
he has not only been good at remaining in contact with our SG, but that
he has taken NCSG considerations into account in coming to his
positions, in so far as one can see into the Board discussions.

Thanks

avri

On 07-Mar-17 05:52, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
> seat election by this Friday. 
>
> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here:
> nominating and documenting the process. 
>
> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by
> PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process. 
> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
> proactive. 
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik 
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Ed,
>
>     Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and
>     act quickly on it.
>     I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but
>     looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get
>     nominees. 
>
>     Best,
>
>     Rafik
>
>     2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>
>         Thanks Rafik. 
>          
>         One question; Are nominations within our group to be self
>         nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the
>         general membership or just members of the PC?
>          
>         I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't
>         been involved in the Board selection process before and would
>         just like to fully understand the process.
>          
>         Kind Regards,
>          
>         Ed 
>          
>          
>          
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>         <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>         *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>         *To*: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org
>         <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>         *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>         *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board
>         Seat Selection Process
>          
>         Hi everyone,
>          
>         since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG
>         and also our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st
>         March to 10th March .
>          
>         Best,
>          
>         Rafik
>          
>         2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>
>             Hi Avri,
>              
>             thanks for the suggestion,
>              
>             so we have now:
>             - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>             - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>             parallel starting (Wednesday?)
>
>             Our counter-proposal is:
>
>               * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>               * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>             succeed.
>               * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>               * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round
>             between top two
>              * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with
>             the whole house.
>               * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round
>             of leader
>                 against NOTA
>               * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat
>             open until we get
>                 our act together.
>               *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA 
>             talk until we
>                 get our act together.
>
>             we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and
>             document that.
>             can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and
>             respond ot CSG?
>               
>             Best,
>              
>             Rafik
>             2017-02-24
>              21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org
>             <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>              
>
>
>
>                 some minor typo corrections
>
>                 Our counter-proposal is:
>
>                   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8
>                 to succeed.
>                   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
>                 round between top two 
>
>                   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd
>                 round of leader
>                     against NOTA
>                   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat
>                 open until we get
>                     our act together.
>                   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>                 NCA  talk until we
>                     get our act together.
>
>                 On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                 > Hi,
>                 >
>                 > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>                 >
>                 > I guess we say:
>                 > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>                 > - However, we can start the nomination process, for
>                 NCSG and CSG in
>                 > parallel starting next week Monday
>                 > - Our counter-proposal is:
>                 >
>                 >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                 >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines -
>                 8 to succeed.
>                 >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                 >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round
>                 between top two
>                 >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round
>                 of leader against
>                 >     NOTA
>                 >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
>                 seat open until we
>                 >     get our act together.
>                 >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>                 NCA  talk until we
>                 >     get our act together.
>                 >
>                 > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share
>                 our response with CSG.
>                 >
>                 > Best,
>                 >
>                 > Rafik
>                 >
>                 > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org
>                 <mailto:avri at apc.org> <mailto:avri at apc.org
>                 <mailto:avri at apc.org>>>:
>                 >
>                 >     Hi,
>                 >
>                 >     I think we could respond that we do not accept
>                 their proposal
>                 >
>                 >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                 >
>                 >     - we insist that there be a vote along the
>                 previous lines - 8 to
>                 >     succeed.
>                 >
>                 >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                 >
>                 >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second
>                 round between top two
>                 >
>                 >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd
>                 round of leader
>                 >     against NOTA
>                 >
>                 >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat
>                 open until we get our
>                 >     act together.
>                 >
>                 >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>                 NCA  talk until
>                 >     we get
>                 >     our act together.
>                 >
>                 >     avri
>                 >
>                 >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>                 >     >
>                 >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say
>                 we are considering/or
>                 >     > not their doc and will be proposing something
>                 or an alternative
>                 >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us -
>                 maybe end of next
>                 >     week?
>                 >     >
>                 >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination
>                 period - say next
>                 >     week?  or
>                 >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be
>                 useful to have the
>                 >     CSG and
>                 >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. 
>                 Agree with CSG whether
>                 >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>                 >     >
>                 >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>                 >     >
>                 >     > Matthew
>                 >     >
>                 >     >
>                 >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                 >     >> Hi all,
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >> we really need to develop our response or
>                 proposal to CSG
>                 >     quickly. at
>                 >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >> Best,
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >> Rafik
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>                 <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>                 >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>                 >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>:
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>     Hi Matt,
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for
>                 other comments on this
>                 >     topic.
>                 >     >>     I think we can start with nomination
>                 whole we work on the
>                 >     process
>                 >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>                 >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we
>                 have 2 candidates for
>                 >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find
>                 other candidates? we
>                 >     >>     don't have so much time for a long
>                 nomination period.
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>     I understand that we are having the
>                 deadline as a mean to press
>                 >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about
>                 the aspects which are
>                 >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>     Best,
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>     Rafik
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears
>                 <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>                 >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>                 >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
>                 <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
>                 <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>>:
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that
>                 we need to deal
>                 >     with it
>                 >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg
>                 before the meeting,
>                 >     which
>                 >     >>         was not really discussed further. 
>                 Then we had some general
>                 >     >>         discussion about the need to do
>                 something on the Board
>                 >     >>         selection process.  People voiced
>                 their views on different
>                 >     >>         aspects of the process and there was
>                 concern over the
>                 >     >>         timeline, but we did not really
>                 decide anything (others
>                 >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed
>                 some important
>                 >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he
>                 wanted to continue in the
>                 >     >>         role; I announced I was going to
>                 run.  Then the CSG
>                 >     proposal
>                 >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs
>                 AM.  There seemed
>                 >     to be
>                 >     >>         general agreement that the CSG
>                 proposal was not ideal.
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us
>                 agreeing a
>                 >     process and
>                 >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting
>                 that announced, so at
>                 >     >>         least the initial stages of the
>                 process are underway.
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>         Matthew
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                 >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume
>                 the discussion on
>                 >     board
>                 >     >>>         seat election.
>                 >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a
>                 summary of what
>                 >     or not
>                 >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard
>                 from those who attended
>                 >     >>>         intersessional?
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our
>                 non-negotiable points
>                 >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA
>                 participation and so on.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from
>                 last week is far
>                 >     from our
>                 >     >>>         expectations.
>                 >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a
>                 call. We can have it
>                 >     by end
>                 >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>         Best,
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>         Rafik
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>                 >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan"
>                 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                 >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
>                 >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>                 >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017]
>                 Board Seat
>                 >     Selection Process
>                 >     >>>         To:
>                 <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                 >     >>>       
>                  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>>
>                 >     >>>         Cc:
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             All,
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             We probably need a different
>                 mailing list to finish
>                 >     >>>             working on the Board Seat
>                 selection process, and a
>                 >     small
>                 >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start
>                 here, since I think
>                 >     this
>                 >     >>>             is the only active mailing list
>                 with both sides of the
>                 >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             We basically have no time to
>                 work this out, and we've
>                 >     >>>             already started the process
>                 without knowing what it is
>                 >     >>>             exactly, since we have now
>                 received nominations.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of
>                 the CPH procedures
>                 >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also
>                 attaching the
>                 >     following
>                 >     >>>             for consideration:
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an
>                 exchange between
>                 >     CSG and
>                 >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a
>                 potential draft
>                 >     process.
>                 >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the
>                 ICANN Staff Memo with a
>                 >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some
>                 relevant excerpts from
>                 >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>                 >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the
>                 Bylaws, with Section
>                 >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the
>                 selection process for Seats
>                 >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is
>                 covered in the
>                 >     Bylaws), and
>                 >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is
>                 referred to in Section
>                 >     11.3(f).
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to
>                 both develop and go
>                 >     >>>             through a process that is
>                 contemplated to take 21
>                 >     weeks
>                 >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk
>                 about building the
>                 >     airplane
>                 >     >>>             in the air.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we
>                 discussed possible
>                 >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but
>                 did not come to any
>                 >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me
>                 whether Staff is
>                 >     >>>             preparing a further revised
>                 draft.  I'll ask.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have
>                 not already done so, we
>                 >     >>>             should put out a call for any
>                 other nominations ASAP
>                 >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know
>                 the end of the
>                 >     >>>             nomination period).
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             D.  Without making any
>                 judgments, the CPH process and
>                 >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are
>                 significantly different
>                 >     when
>                 >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to
>                 get this process
>                 >     agreed
>                 >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given
>                 the unusual
>                 >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to
>                 use this process as
>                 >     >>>             precedent for any future
>                 process.  We just need to get
>                 >     >>>             through this selection.  One
>                 approach is for NCSG to
>                 >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the
>                 end of the
>                 >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given
>                 the gap between
>                 >     that and
>                 >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just
>                 be better to
>                 >     arrange a
>                 >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP
>                 to move the ball
>                 >     forward.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             Greg
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that
>                 important how we got here, but
>                 >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted
>                 that the GNSO
>                 >     Procedures
>                 >     >>>             were never updated from 2012,
>                 when the Bylaws deadline
>                 >     >>>             for naming the Director was
>                 changed from one month to
>                 >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then
>                 six months prior to
>                 >     being
>                 >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures
>                 will need to be
>                 >     updated in
>                 >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws
>                 references are now
>                 >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft
>                 bullet-points repeated this
>                 >     error.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with
>                 very little time
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>                 >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>                 >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>                 >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>                 >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message
>                 ----------
>                 >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan*
>                 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                 >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
>                 >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>                 >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of
>                 Interim Board
>                 >     Selection Process
>                 >     >>>             To:
>                 ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                 >     >>>           
>                  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional
>                 Participants,
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion
>                 draft" of a proposed
>                 >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process
>                 based closely on the
>                 >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the
>                 Contracted Parties House.
>                 >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are
>                 attached, showing changes
>                 >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be
>                 found here, where any
>                 >     >>>             suggested changes can be added
>                 in "suggest" mode (but
>                 >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>                 >     >>>             rights):
>                 >   
>                  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>                 >   
>                  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>                 >   
>                  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             We would hope to use this for
>                 the current 2017 Board
>                 >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit
>                 afterward before
>                 >     making it
>                 >     >>>             a permanent rather than
>                 "interim" process.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by
>                 the membership of
>                 >     the IPC,
>                 >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to
>                 start the discussion on
>                 >     >>>             this basis, given the short
>                 amount of time we have for
>                 >     >>>             this year.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             Thanks!
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP
>                 Intersessional Teams)
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>                 >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>                 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>                 >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>                 >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>                 >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>                 >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>           
>                  _______________________________________________
>                 >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>                 >     >>>           
>                  Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                 >     >>>           
>                  <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                 >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     
>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>                 >   
>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>                 >     >>>           
>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>                 >   
>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>
>                 >     >>>       
>                  _______________________________________________
>                 >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>                 >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
>                 >     <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto: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>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                 >     >>>       
>                  <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>>
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >>         --
>                 >     >>         ------------
>                 >     >>         Matthew Shears
>                 >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>                 >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>                 >     >>         + 44 771 2472987
>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                 >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>                 >     >>
>                 >     >> _______________________________________________
>                 >     >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>                 >     >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto: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>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                 >     > --
>                 >     > ------------
>                 >     > Matthew Shears
>                 >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>                 >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>                 >     > + 44 771 2472987
>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                 >     >
>                 >     > _______________________________________________
>                 >     > NCSG-PC mailing list
>                 >     > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto: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>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                 >
>                 >
>                 >     ---
>                 >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>                 antivirus software.
>                 >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>>
>                 >
>                 >     _______________________________________________
>                 >     NCSG-PC mailing list
>                 >     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                 <mailto: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>
>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                 >
>                 >
>
>                  
>                 ---
>                 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>                 antivirus software.
>                 https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>                  
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 egmorris1 at toast.net  Tue Mar  7 17:28:48 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:28:48 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB52159FCE42EB116D97CE9BFF72F0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <DB3PR05MB52159FCE42EB116D97CE9BFF72F0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <2F559C9C-B14F-4994-B17A-7ABDA999FAEE@toast.net>

That would be great Stefania! We'll have to notify Council...we have a great group there and I'm sure everyone will be happy to get you up to date. Thanks for stepping up!

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:58, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tapani, PC colleagues
> I am up for the job in Copenhagen (to start with?)
> 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 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> Inviato: marted? 7 marzo 2017 14.48.49
> A: ncsg-pc
> Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
> 
> Dear Councillors,
> 
> Amr Elsadr was one of NCSG's representatives in the Bylaws
> Drafting Team and as he moved to staff he should be replaced.
> 
> The council resolution creating the DT put it upon council
> members to identify volunteers, so it's up to you now to
> find replacement for Amr. I would suggest it'd be good for
> it to be a councillor, although that's not required.
> 
> For reference:
> 
> Council resolution creating the DT:
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/GNSO+Bylaws+Implementation+Drafting+Team+Home
> 
> First message to the DT mailing list:
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/2016-August/000000.html
> 
> DT Home:
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar  7 17:55:15 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:55:15 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
In-Reply-To: <2F559C9C-B14F-4994-B17A-7ABDA999FAEE@toast.net>
References: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <DB3PR05MB52159FCE42EB116D97CE9BFF72F0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <2F559C9C-B14F-4994-B17A-7ABDA999FAEE@toast.net>
Message-ID: <kKDP5teQaiEfDV0GEEaYRQ9hbw2AK8VCc74jo9P1yDTviL7k8VoY-8_c7RXVGwvKOoUEYm_RKVjf_-KJ6KT8Zf5FzS_sdpTF_sUrwbzT7cs=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks for rolling up your sleeves, Stefi.



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
Local Time: 7 March 2017 3:28 PM
UTC Time: 7 March 2017 15:28
From: egmorris1 at toast.net
To: "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

That would be great Stefania! We'll have to notify Council...we have a great group there and I'm sure everyone will be happy to get you up to date. Thanks for stepping up!

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:58, Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi Tapani, PC colleagues
> I am up for the job in Copenhagen (to start with?)
> 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 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> Inviato: marted? 7 marzo 2017 14.48.49
> A: ncsg-pc
> Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Amr Elsadr was one of NCSG's representatives in the Bylaws
> Drafting Team and as he moved to staff he should be replaced.
>
> The council resolution creating the DT put it upon council
> members to identify volunteers, so it's up to you now to
> find replacement for Amr. I would suggest it'd be good for
> it to be a councillor, although that's not required.
>
> For reference:
>
> Council resolution creating the DT:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/GNSO+Bylaws+Implementation+Drafting+Team+Home
>
> First message to the DT mailing list:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/2016-August/000000.html
>
> DT Home:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/1937581b/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar  7 18:03:08 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:03:08 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <NUJ1GQwUYd7aAmg2U1kvlixEmdKglSW9tk2yZrtmDMw4xOvuenx72gfpdQgHyZyWf8Ne9ODsMbi-H6xbN8h4wqFxD8Vx95X9SrFyDj0Lg0Q=@ferdeline.com>

Do we have any ideas around who the CSG will be nominating? I have heard one name mumbled, but if anyone has heard something more concrete, I would be curious to hear what you have learned... Thanks.



- Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
Local Time: 7 March 2017 10:52 AM
UTC Time: 7 March 2017 10:52
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>



Hi everyone,

As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board seat election by this Friday.

We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating and documenting the process.

I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be proactive.


Best,

Rafik




On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:





Hi Ed,

Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act quickly on it.
I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.

Best,

Rafik



2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

Thanks Rafik.

One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just members of the PC?

I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully understand the process.

Kind Regards,

Ed



------


From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
To: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
Cc: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process




Hi everyone,

since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .

Best,


Rafik


2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:


Hi Avri,

thanks for the suggestion,

so we have now:

- we cannot accept CSG proposal.
- we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel starting (Wednesday?)

Our counter-proposal is:

* NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
* there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
* as many nominees as come forward in a week.
* 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two

* a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole house.
* 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
against NOTA
* 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
our act together.
* then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we
get our act together.

we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?

Best,


Rafik
2017-02-24

21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:






some minor typo corrections

Our counter-proposal is:

* NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
* there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
* as many nominees as come forward in a week.
* 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two
* 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
against NOTA
* 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
our act together.
* then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we
get our act together.

On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>
> I guess we say:
> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
> parallel starting next week Monday
> - Our counter-proposal is:
>
> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
> * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
> * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
> NOTA
> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
> get our act together.
> * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we
> get our act together.
>
> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org>>:


>
> Hi,
>
> I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>
> - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>
> - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
> succeed.
>
> - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>
> - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>
> - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
> against NOTA
>
> - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our
> act together.
>
> - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until
> we get
> our act together.
>
> avri
>
> On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or
> > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
> > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
> week?
> >
> > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
> week? or
> > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the
> CSG and
> > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether
> > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
> >
> > In the interim start work on the process?
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
> quickly. at
> >> least covering the topic of nomination.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>:
> >>
> >> Hi Matt,
> >>
> >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
> topic.
> >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
> process
> >> and adjust the whole timeline.
> >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for
> >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we
> >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
> >>
> >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press
> >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are
> >> non-negotiable with regard to the process.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:


> >>
> >> Thanks Rafik
> >>
> >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
> with it
> >> and we are running out of time.
> >>
> >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
> which
> >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general
> >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board
> >> selection process. People voiced their views on different
> >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the
> >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
> >> please jump in as I may have missed some important
> >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the
> >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG
> proposal
> >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed
> to be
> >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
> >>
> >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
> process and
> >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at
> >> least the initial stages of the process are underway.
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
> >>
> >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
> board
> >>> seat election.
> >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
> or not
> >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended
> >>> intersessional?
> >>>
> >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points
> >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
> >>>
> >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
> from our
> >>> expectations.
> >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
> by end
> >>> of this week but we do need to be ready.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Rafik
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
> >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
> Selection Process
> >>> To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>


> >>> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
> >>> Cc:
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish
> >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
> small
> >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
> this
> >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the
> >>> NCPH on it.
> >>>
> >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've
> >>> already started the process without knowing what it is
> >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations.
> >>>
> >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures
> >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
> following
> >>> for consideration:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between
> CSG and
> >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
> process.
> >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a
> >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from
> >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
> >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section
> >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats
> >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
> Bylaws), and
> >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
> 11.3(f).
> >>>
> >>> A few thoughts and comments:
> >>>
> >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go
> >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21
> weeks
> >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the
> airplane
> >>> in the air.
> >>>
> >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
> >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any
> >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is
> >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask.
> >>>
> >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we
> >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP
> >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the
> >>> nomination period).
> >>>
> >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and
> >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
> when
> >>> it comes to voting.
> >>>
> >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process
> agreed
> >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual
> >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as
> >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get
> >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to
> >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the
> >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between
> that and
> >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to
> arrange a
> >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
> forward.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for reading,
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but
> >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
> Procedures
> >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline
> >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to
> >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
> being
> >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
> updated in
> >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now
> >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this
> error.
> >>>
> >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Greg Shatan
> >>> *C: 917-816-6428
> >>> S: gsshatan
> >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
> >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
> Selection Process
> >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org


> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
> >>>
> >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed
> >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the
> >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House.
> >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes
> >>> from the CPH document.
> >>>
> >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
> >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but
> >>> everyone has "edit"
> >>> rights):
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
> >>>
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
> >>>
> >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board
> >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before
> making it
> >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process.
> >>>
> >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of
> the IPC,
> >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on
> >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for
> >>> this year.
> >>>
> >>> We look forward to your thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams)
> >>>
> >>> *Greg Shatan
> >>> *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
> >>> S: gsshatan
> >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
> >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
> >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
> >>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> <mailto: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>
> >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------
> >> Matthew Shears
> >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >> [+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987) <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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>
> > --
> > ------------
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> > [+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987) <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/709770e3/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Mar  7 18:08:24 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 01:08:24 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <NUJ1GQwUYd7aAmg2U1kvlixEmdKglSW9tk2yZrtmDMw4xOvuenx72gfpdQgHyZyWf8Ne9ODsMbi-H6xbN8h4wqFxD8Vx95X9SrFyDj0Lg0Q=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <NUJ1GQwUYd7aAmg2U1kvlixEmdKglSW9tk2yZrtmDMw4xOvuenx72gfpdQgHyZyWf8Ne9ODsMbi-H6xbN8h4wqFxD8Vx95X9SrFyDj0Lg0Q=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=Ra+qYQApT5zgcXPuFVGpz7TEJd2OHk1hn4XqLrxCCnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

I don't think there was any official communication about names from CSG. so
at this level, we should focus on who we would like to nominate. we
proposed the deadline and need to live up to it :)

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-08 1:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Do we have any ideas around who the CSG will be nominating? I have heard
> one name mumbled, but if anyone has heard something more concrete, I would
> be curious to hear what you have learned... Thanks.
>
> - Ayden
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
> Local Time: 7 March 2017 10:52 AM
> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 10:52
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
> seat election by this Friday.
>
> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
> and documenting the process.
>
> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
> members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
> proactive.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act
> quickly on it.
> I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
> to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>
>> Thanks Rafik.
>>
>> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
>> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
>> members of the PC?
>>
>> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
>> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
>> understand the process.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>> Selection Process
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also
>> our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>>
>>> so we have now:
>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>>
>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>
>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>> two
>>>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>>> house.
>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>     against NOTA
>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>     our act together.
>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>     get our act together.
>>>
>>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> 2017-02-24
>>>  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>>
>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>
>>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>> two
>>>>
>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>     against NOTA
>>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>     our act together.
>>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>     get our act together.
>>>>
>>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>>> >
>>>> > I guess we say:
>>>> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>>> > parallel starting next week Monday
>>>> > - Our counter-proposal is:
>>>> >
>>>> >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>> >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>> >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>> >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>> >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>>>> >     NOTA
>>>> >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>>> >     get our act together.
>>>> >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>> >     get our act together.
>>>> >
>>>> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>>> CSG.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> >
>>>> > Rafik
>>>> >
>>>> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>>> >
>>>> >     Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> >     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>>> >
>>>> >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>> >
>>>> >     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>>> >     succeed.
>>>> >
>>>> >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>> >
>>>> >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>> >
>>>> >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>> >     against NOTA
>>>> >
>>>> >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we
>>>> get our
>>>> >     act together.
>>>> >
>>>> >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>>> >     we get
>>>> >     our act together.
>>>> >
>>>> >     avri
>>>> >
>>>> >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>>> considering/or
>>>> >     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>>> >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>>>> >     week?
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>>> >     week?  or
>>>> >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>>> >     CSG and
>>>> >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>>>> >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > Matthew
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> >     >> Hi all,
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>>> >     quickly. at
>>>> >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> Best,
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> Rafik
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <
>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> >>>:
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     Hi Matt,
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>>>> >     topic.
>>>> >     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>>> >     process
>>>> >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>>> >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>>>> for
>>>> >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
>>>> we
>>>> >     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>>> press
>>>> >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects
>>>> which are
>>>> >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     Best,
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     Rafik
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>>> >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>> >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>>> >     with it
>>>> >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>>>> >     which
>>>> >     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>>> general
>>>> >     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>>> >     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>>> different
>>>> >     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>>> >     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>>> >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>>> >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>>> the
>>>> >     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>>> >     proposal
>>>> >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>>> >     to be
>>>> >     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>>> >     process and
>>>> >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced,
>>>> so at
>>>> >     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         Matthew
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>>>> >     board
>>>> >     >>>         seat election.
>>>> >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>>> >     or not
>>>> >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>>> attended
>>>> >     >>>         intersessional?
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>>> points
>>>> >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>>> >     from our
>>>> >     >>>         expectations.
>>>> >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>>> >     by end
>>>> >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         Best,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         Rafik
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>> >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>>> >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>> >     Selection Process
>>>> >     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>> >     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>>> >     >>>         Cc:
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             All,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to
>>>> finish
>>>> >     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>>>> >     small
>>>> >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>>>> >     this
>>>> >     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides
>>>> of the
>>>> >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>>> we've
>>>> >     >>>             already started the process without knowing what
>>>> it is
>>>> >     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH
>>>> procedures
>>>> >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>>> >     following
>>>> >     >>>             for consideration:
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>>> >     CSG and
>>>> >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>>> >     process.
>>>> >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>>> with a
>>>> >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>>>> from
>>>> >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>>> >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with
>>>> Section
>>>> >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>>> Seats
>>>> >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>>> >     Bylaws), and
>>>> >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>>> >     11.3(f).
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
>>>> go
>>>> >     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>>> >     weeks
>>>> >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>>> >     airplane
>>>> >     >>>             in the air.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>>> >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>>> any
>>>> >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>>> >     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done
>>>> so, we
>>>> >     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations
>>>> ASAP
>>>> >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>>> >     >>>             nomination period).
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>>>> and
>>>> >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>>>> >     when
>>>> >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>>> >     agreed
>>>> >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>>> >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process
>>>> as
>>>> >     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need
>>>> to get
>>>> >     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
>>>> to
>>>> >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>>> >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>>> >     that and
>>>> >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>>> >     arrange a
>>>> >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>>> >     forward.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             Greg
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
>>>> here, but
>>>> >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>>> >     Procedures
>>>> >     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>>> deadline
>>>> >     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one
>>>> month to
>>>> >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>>> >     being
>>>> >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>>> >     updated in
>>>> >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>>> >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>>>> >     error.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>> >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>>> >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>>> >     Selection Process
>>>> >     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a
>>>> proposed
>>>> >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>>> the
>>>> >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>>> House.
>>>> >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>>> changes
>>>> >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>>> >     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>>> (but
>>>> >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>>>> >     >>>             rights):
>>>> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>>> Board
>>>> >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>>> >     making it
>>>> >     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>>> >     the IPC,
>>>> >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>>> discussion on
>>>> >     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we
>>>> have for
>>>> >     >>>             this year.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             Thanks!
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>>> Teams)
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>> >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             _______________________________________________
>>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>>> >     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         _______________________________________________
>>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> >     <mailto: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>
>>>> >     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>> >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         --
>>>> >     >>         ------------
>>>> >     >>         Matthew Shears
>>>> >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> >     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>> >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >     >> 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>
>>>> >     > --
>>>> >     > ------------
>>>> >     > Matthew Shears
>>>> >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> >     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > _______________________________________________
>>>> >     > 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>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >     ---
>>>> >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>> software.
>>>> >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>> >
>>>> >     _______________________________________________
>>>> >     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>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170308/e15cb9fc/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Mar  7 18:11:27 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 01:11:27 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB52159FCE42EB116D97CE9BFF72F0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <DB3PR05MB52159FCE42EB116D97CE9BFF72F0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmq5CiXG8EPggX7Rx9CYK_r1zR+sRs+hncYLNoEeys4ow@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Thanks Stefania for volunteering and putting your name for work
let's see if there are other volunteers, after that we can confirm.
for those in the bylaws DT, can you please share with us about the status
of the work there and what still need to be done?

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-07 22:57 GMT+09:00 Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>:

> Hi Tapani, PC colleagues
> I am up for the job in Copenhagen (to start with?)
> 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 Tapani Tarvainen
> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> Inviato: marted? 7 marzo 2017 14.48.49
> A: ncsg-pc
> Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Amr Elsadr was one of NCSG's representatives in the Bylaws
> Drafting Team and as he moved to staff he should be replaced.
>
> The council resolution creating the DT put it upon council
> members to identify volunteers, so it's up to you now to
> find replacement for Amr. I would suggest it'd be good for
> it to be a councillor, although that's not required.
>
> For reference:
>
> Council resolution creating the DT:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/GNSO+Bylaws+
> Implementation+Drafting+Team+Home
>
> First message to the DT mailing list:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/2016-August/000000.html
>
> DT Home:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170308/5b2efbfa/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar  7 18:15:22 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:15:22 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=Ra+qYQApT5zgcXPuFVGpz7TEJd2OHk1hn4XqLrxCCnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <NUJ1GQwUYd7aAmg2U1kvlixEmdKglSW9tk2yZrtmDMw4xOvuenx72gfpdQgHyZyWf8Ne9ODsMbi-H6xbN8h4wqFxD8Vx95X9SrFyDj0Lg0Q=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=Ra+qYQApT5zgcXPuFVGpz7TEJd2OHk1hn4XqLrxCCnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <yFsgIR1rIDI-gFZqcvFB4AKyCJzhFbXAuEjf_8KMhoefdMYDPg_740hko_-DY-1MeKVWY7ADdQuHJLz7aBz8l-u4oSu2W-PSRVE_LpW6ohU=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Rafik,

I hate to be contrarian but I don't think we should follow this timeline. It is artificial. My understanding is that there has to be six months between a candidate being selected and them taking a seat on the board. If we take a month or two longer to appoint someone, but follow the process properly and rush nothing, I think that will be the better outcome. I am happy with both of the candidates nominated today (by Stephanie, and by Avri), and my comments are no reflection on them. I just don't have the same sense of urgency to appoint a new board member when not all of us (myself, at least) are entirely clear on the process. I still don't know how the interviews work; who asks the questions, etc.

Best wishes,



Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
Local Time: 7 March 2017 4:08 PM
UTC Time: 7 March 2017 16:08
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>



Hi Ayden,

I don't think there was any official communication about names from CSG. so at this level, we should focus on who we would like to nominate. we proposed the deadline and need to live up to it :)

Best,


Rafik


2017-03-08 1:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

Do we have any ideas around who the CSG will be nominating? I have heard one name mumbled, but if anyone has heard something more concrete, I would be curious to hear what you have learned... Thanks.




- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
Local Time: 7 March 2017 10:52 AM
UTC Time: 7 March 2017 10:52
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>



Hi everyone,

As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board seat election by this Friday.

We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating and documenting the process.

I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be proactive.


Best,

Rafik




On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:





Hi Ed,

Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act quickly on it.
I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.

Best,

Rafik



2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

Thanks Rafik.

One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just members of the PC?

I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully understand the process.

Kind Regards,

Ed



------


From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
To: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
Cc: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process




Hi everyone,

since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .

Best,


Rafik


2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:


Hi Avri,

thanks for the suggestion,

so we have now:

- we cannot accept CSG proposal.
- we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel starting (Wednesday?)

Our counter-proposal is:

* NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
* there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
* as many nominees as come forward in a week.
* 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two

* a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole house.
* 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
against NOTA
* 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
our act together.
* then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we
get our act together.

we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?

Best,


Rafik
2017-02-24

21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:






some minor typo corrections

Our counter-proposal is:

* NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
* there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
* as many nominees as come forward in a week.
* 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two
* 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
against NOTA
* 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
our act together.
* then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we
get our act together.

On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>
> I guess we say:
> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
> parallel starting next week Monday
> - Our counter-proposal is:
>
> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
> * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
> * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
> NOTA
> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
> get our act together.
> * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we
> get our act together.
>
> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org>>:


>
> Hi,
>
> I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>
> - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>
> - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
> succeed.
>
> - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>
> - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>
> - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
> against NOTA
>
> - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our
> act together.
>
> - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until
> we get
> our act together.
>
> avri
>
> On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or
> > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
> > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
> week?
> >
> > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
> week? or
> > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the
> CSG and
> > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether
> > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
> >
> > In the interim start work on the process?
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
> quickly. at
> >> least covering the topic of nomination.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>:
> >>
> >> Hi Matt,
> >>
> >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
> topic.
> >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
> process
> >> and adjust the whole timeline.
> >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for
> >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we
> >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
> >>
> >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press
> >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are
> >> non-negotiable with regard to the process.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:


> >>
> >> Thanks Rafik
> >>
> >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
> with it
> >> and we are running out of time.
> >>
> >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
> which
> >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general
> >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board
> >> selection process. People voiced their views on different
> >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the
> >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
> >> please jump in as I may have missed some important
> >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the
> >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG
> proposal
> >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed
> to be
> >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
> >>
> >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
> process and
> >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at
> >> least the initial stages of the process are underway.
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
> >>
> >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
> board
> >>> seat election.
> >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
> or not
> >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended
> >>> intersessional?
> >>>
> >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points
> >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
> >>>
> >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
> from our
> >>> expectations.
> >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
> by end
> >>> of this week but we do need to be ready.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Rafik
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
> >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
> Selection Process
> >>> To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>


> >>> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
> >>> Cc:
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish
> >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
> small
> >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
> this
> >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the
> >>> NCPH on it.
> >>>
> >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've
> >>> already started the process without knowing what it is
> >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations.
> >>>
> >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures
> >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
> following
> >>> for consideration:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between
> CSG and
> >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
> process.
> >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a
> >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from
> >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
> >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section
> >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats
> >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
> Bylaws), and
> >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
> 11.3(f).
> >>>
> >>> A few thoughts and comments:
> >>>
> >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go
> >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21
> weeks
> >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the
> airplane
> >>> in the air.
> >>>
> >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
> >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any
> >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is
> >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask.
> >>>
> >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we
> >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP
> >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the
> >>> nomination period).
> >>>
> >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and
> >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
> when
> >>> it comes to voting.
> >>>
> >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process
> agreed
> >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual
> >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as
> >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get
> >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to
> >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the
> >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between
> that and
> >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to
> arrange a
> >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
> forward.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for reading,
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but
> >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
> Procedures
> >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline
> >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to
> >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
> being
> >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
> updated in
> >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now
> >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this
> error.
> >>>
> >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Greg Shatan
> >>> *C: 917-816-6428
> >>> S: gsshatan
> >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
> >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
> Selection Process
> >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org


> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
> >>>
> >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed
> >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the
> >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House.
> >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes
> >>> from the CPH document.
> >>>
> >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
> >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but
> >>> everyone has "edit"
> >>> rights):
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
> >>>
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
> >>>
> >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board
> >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before
> making it
> >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process.
> >>>
> >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of
> the IPC,
> >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on
> >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for
> >>> this year.
> >>>
> >>> We look forward to your thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams)
> >>>
> >>> *Greg Shatan
> >>> *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
> >>> S: gsshatan
> >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
> >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
> >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
> >>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> <mailto: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>
> >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------
> >> Matthew Shears
> >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >> [+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987) <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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>
> > --
> > ------------
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> > [+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987) <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/7b3917e6/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Mar  7 18:24:00 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 01:24:00 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <yFsgIR1rIDI-gFZqcvFB4AKyCJzhFbXAuEjf_8KMhoefdMYDPg_740hko_-DY-1MeKVWY7ADdQuHJLz7aBz8l-u4oSu2W-PSRVE_LpW6ohU=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <NUJ1GQwUYd7aAmg2U1kvlixEmdKglSW9tk2yZrtmDMw4xOvuenx72gfpdQgHyZyWf8Ne9ODsMbi-H6xbN8h4wqFxD8Vx95X9SrFyDj0Lg0Q=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=Ra+qYQApT5zgcXPuFVGpz7TEJd2OHk1hn4XqLrxCCnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <yFsgIR1rIDI-gFZqcvFB4AKyCJzhFbXAuEjf_8KMhoefdMYDPg_740hko_-DY-1MeKVWY7ADdQuHJLz7aBz8l-u4oSu2W-PSRVE_LpW6ohU=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=JXV2QHMoKQbXFCC1kj7qsxFW-Xr71cW6XfCbrqnF6_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

the process is still under discussion as you may have seen the response
from Greg to our suggestion. we agreed at PC to set this nomination period
so we can have time to interview candidates at least in Copenhagen meeting.

if I am not mistaking the date limit to get a board member elected is
imposed by the new bylaws. we can adjust and tweak the timeline around that
and finalize the process. I do think that is such the urgency which pushes
us to work on the election.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-08 1:15 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> I hate to be contrarian but I don't think we should follow this timeline.
> It is artificial. My understanding is that there has to be six months
> between a candidate being selected and them taking a seat on the board. If
> we take a month or two longer to appoint someone, but follow the process
> properly and rush nothing, I think that will be the better outcome. I am
> happy with both of the candidates nominated today (by Stephanie, and by
> Avri), and my comments are no reflection on them. I just don't have the
> same sense of urgency to appoint a new board member when not all of us
> (myself, at least) are entirely clear on the process. I still don't know
> how the interviews work; who asks the questions, etc.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
> Local Time: 7 March 2017 4:08 PM
> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 16:08
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
> I don't think there was any official communication about names from CSG.
> so at this level, we should focus on who we would like to nominate. we
> proposed the deadline and need to live up to it :)
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-03-08 1:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Do we have any ideas around who the CSG will be nominating? I have heard
>> one name mumbled, but if anyone has heard something more concrete, I would
>> be curious to hear what you have learned... Thanks.
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>  -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
>> Local Time: 7 March 2017 10:52 AM
>> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 10:52
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
>> seat election by this Friday.
>>
>> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
>> and documenting the process.
>>
>> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
>> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
>> members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
>> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
>> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
>> proactive.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act
>> quickly on it.
>> I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but
>> looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>
>>> Thanks Rafik.
>>>
>>> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
>>> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
>>> members of the PC?
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
>>> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
>>> understand the process.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>> Selection Process
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also
>>> our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>>>
>>>> so we have now:
>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>>>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>>>
>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>
>>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>> two
>>>>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>>>> house.
>>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>     against NOTA
>>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>     our act together.
>>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>     get our act together.
>>>>
>>>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>>>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 2017-02-24
>>>>  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>>>
>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>
>>>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>> two
>>>>>
>>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>     against NOTA
>>>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>>>> get
>>>>>     our act together.
>>>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>     get our act together.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I guess we say:
>>>>> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>>>> > parallel starting next week Monday
>>>>> > - Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>> >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>> >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>> >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>> >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>> against
>>>>> >     NOTA
>>>>> >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>>>> >     get our act together.
>>>>> >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>>>> we
>>>>> >     get our act together.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>>>> CSG.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Rafik
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Hi,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>>>> >     succeed.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top
>>>>> two
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>> >     against NOTA
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we
>>>>> get our
>>>>> >     act together.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>>>> >     we get
>>>>> >     our act together.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     avri
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>>>> considering/or
>>>>> >     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>>>> >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of
>>>>> next
>>>>> >     week?
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>>>> >     week?  or
>>>>> >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>>>> >     CSG and
>>>>> >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG
>>>>> whether
>>>>> >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > Matthew
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> >     >> Hi all,
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>>>> >     quickly. at
>>>>> >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >> Best,
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >> Rafik
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <
>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>> >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> >>>:
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>     Hi Matt,
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on
>>>>> this
>>>>> >     topic.
>>>>> >     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>>>> >     process
>>>>> >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>>>> >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2
>>>>> candidates for
>>>>> >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other
>>>>> candidates? we
>>>>> >     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>>>> press
>>>>> >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects
>>>>> which are
>>>>> >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>     Best,
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>     Rafik
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <
>>>>> mshears at cdt.org
>>>>> >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>>> >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>>>> >     with it
>>>>> >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the
>>>>> meeting,
>>>>> >     which
>>>>> >     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>>>> general
>>>>> >     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>>>> >     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>>>> different
>>>>> >     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>>>> >     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything
>>>>> (others
>>>>> >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>>>> >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>>>> the
>>>>> >     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>>>> >     proposal
>>>>> >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There
>>>>> seemed
>>>>> >     to be
>>>>> >     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>>>> >     process and
>>>>> >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced,
>>>>> so at
>>>>> >     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>         Matthew
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion
>>>>> on
>>>>> >     board
>>>>> >     >>>         seat election.
>>>>> >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>>>> >     or not
>>>>> >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>>>> attended
>>>>> >     >>>         intersessional?
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>>>> points
>>>>> >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>>>> >     from our
>>>>> >     >>>         expectations.
>>>>> >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>>>> >     by end
>>>>> >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>         Best,
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>         Rafik
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>> >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>> >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>>>> >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>>> >     Selection Process
>>>>> >     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>> >     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>>>> >     >>>         Cc:
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             All,
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to
>>>>> finish
>>>>> >     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and
>>>>> a
>>>>> >     small
>>>>> >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I
>>>>> think
>>>>> >     this
>>>>> >     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides
>>>>> of the
>>>>> >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>>>> we've
>>>>> >     >>>             already started the process without knowing what
>>>>> it is
>>>>> >     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH
>>>>> procedures
>>>>> >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>>>> >     following
>>>>> >     >>>             for consideration:
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>>>> >     CSG and
>>>>> >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>>>> >     process.
>>>>> >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>>>> with a
>>>>> >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant
>>>>> excerpts from
>>>>> >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>>>> >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with
>>>>> Section
>>>>> >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>>>> Seats
>>>>> >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>>>> >     Bylaws), and
>>>>> >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>>>> >     11.3(f).
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop
>>>>> and go
>>>>> >     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>>>> >     weeks
>>>>> >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>>>> >     airplane
>>>>> >     >>>             in the air.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>>>> >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>>>> any
>>>>> >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>>>> >     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done
>>>>> so, we
>>>>> >     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations
>>>>> ASAP
>>>>> >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>>>> >     >>>             nomination period).
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH
>>>>> process and
>>>>> >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly
>>>>> different
>>>>> >     when
>>>>> >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>>>> >     agreed
>>>>> >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>>>> >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process
>>>>> as
>>>>> >     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need
>>>>> to get
>>>>> >     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for
>>>>> NCSG to
>>>>> >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>>>> >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>>>> >     that and
>>>>> >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>>>> >     arrange a
>>>>> >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>>>> >     forward.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             Greg
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
>>>>> here, but
>>>>> >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>>>> >     Procedures
>>>>> >     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>>>> deadline
>>>>> >     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one
>>>>> month to
>>>>> >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>>>> >     being
>>>>> >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>>>> >     updated in
>>>>> >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>>>> >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated
>>>>> this
>>>>> >     error.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>> >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>>>> >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>>>> >     Selection Process
>>>>> >     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a
>>>>> proposed
>>>>> >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>>>> the
>>>>> >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>>>> House.
>>>>> >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>>>> changes
>>>>> >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where
>>>>> any
>>>>> >     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>>>> (but
>>>>> >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>>>>> >     >>>             rights):
>>>>> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>>>> Board
>>>>> >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>>>> >     making it
>>>>> >     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>>>> >     the IPC,
>>>>> >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>>>> discussion on
>>>>> >     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we
>>>>> have for
>>>>> >     >>>             this year.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             Thanks!
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>>>> Teams)
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>> >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>>>> >     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>
>>>>> >     >>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>> >     <mailto: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>
>>>>> >     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>> >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >>         --
>>>>> >     >>         ------------
>>>>> >     >>         Matthew Shears
>>>>> >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>> >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>> >     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>>> >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>>> >     >>
>>>>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >     >> 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>
>>>>> >     > --
>>>>> >     > ------------
>>>>> >     > Matthew Shears
>>>>> >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>> >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>> >     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>>> >     >
>>>>> >     > _______________________________________________
>>>>> >     > 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>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     ---
>>>>> >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>>> software.
>>>>> >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     _______________________________________________
>>>>> >     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>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170308/435a576f/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Tue Mar  7 19:24:15 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 12:24:15 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <NUJ1GQwUYd7aAmg2U1kvlixEmdKglSW9tk2yZrtmDMw4xOvuenx72gfpdQgHyZyWf8Ne9ODsMbi-H6xbN8h4wqFxD8Vx95X9SrFyDj0Lg0Q=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <NUJ1GQwUYd7aAmg2U1kvlixEmdKglSW9tk2yZrtmDMw4xOvuenx72gfpdQgHyZyWf8Ne9ODsMbi-H6xbN8h4wqFxD8Vx95X9SrFyDj0Lg0Q=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <8dc44718-14f3-cf8b-9143-9d6533198954@apc.org>


Another question, what formula re we using.  Has NCPH come to
agreement?  Have we agreed to as many nominiees as come forward?

If so should we be nominating on the NCPH list as opposed to by SG?

Who is the point person for NCSG in this dog's beakfast?

avri


On 07-Mar-17 11:03, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Do we have any ideas around who the CSG will be nominating? I have
> heard one name mumbled, but if anyone has heard something more
> concrete, I would be curious to hear what you have learned... Thanks.
>
> - Ayden
>
>>  -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
>> Local Time: 7 March 2017 10:52 AM
>> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 10:52
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the
>> board seat election by this Friday. 
>>
>> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here:
>> nominating and documenting the process. 
>>
>> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
>> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination
>> by PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process. 
>> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
>> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
>> proactive. 
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik 
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Ed,
>>
>>     Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and
>>     act quickly on it.
>>     I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC,
>>     but looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to
>>     get nominees. 
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>>
>>         Thanks Rafik. 
>>          
>>         One question; Are nominations within our group to be self
>>         nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the
>>         general membership or just members of the PC?
>>          
>>         I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't
>>         been involved in the Board selection process before and would
>>         just like to fully understand the process.
>>          
>>         Kind Regards,
>>          
>>         Ed 
>>          
>>          
>>          
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>         *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>>         *To*: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org
>>         <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>         *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>         *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board
>>         Seat Selection Process
>>          
>>         Hi everyone,
>>          
>>         since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG
>>         and also our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st
>>         March to 10th March .
>>          
>>         Best,
>>          
>>         Rafik
>>          
>>         2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>             Hi Avri,
>>              
>>             thanks for the suggestion,
>>              
>>             so we have now:
>>             - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>             - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG
>>             in parallel starting (Wednesday?)
>>
>>             Our counter-proposal is:
>>
>>               * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>               * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>             succeed.
>>               * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>               * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
>>             round between top two
>>              * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round
>>             with the whole house.
>>               * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round
>>             of leader
>>                 against NOTA
>>               * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat
>>             open until we get
>>                 our act together.
>>               *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA 
>>             talk until we
>>                 get our act together.
>>
>>             we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and
>>             document that.
>>             can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and
>>             respond ot CSG?
>>               
>>             Best,
>>              
>>             Rafik
>>             2017-02-24
>>              21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org
>>             <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>              
>>
>>
>>
>>                 some minor typo corrections
>>
>>                 Our counter-proposal is:
>>
>>                   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>                   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8
>>                 to succeed.
>>                   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>                   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
>>                 round between top two 
>>
>>                   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd
>>                 round of leader
>>                     against NOTA
>>                   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
>>                 seat open until we get
>>                     our act together.
>>                   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>>                 NCA  talk until we
>>                     get our act together.
>>
>>                 On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>                 > Hi,
>>                 >
>>                 > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>                 >
>>                 > I guess we say:
>>                 > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>                 > - However, we can start the nomination process, for
>>                 NCSG and CSG in
>>                 > parallel starting next week Monday
>>                 > - Our counter-proposal is:
>>                 >
>>                 >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>                 >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines -
>>                 8 to succeed.
>>                 >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>                 >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second
>>                 round between top two
>>                 >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd
>>                 round of leader against
>>                 >     NOTA
>>                 >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
>>                 seat open until we
>>                 >     get our act together.
>>                 >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>>                 NCA  talk until we
>>                 >     get our act together.
>>                 >
>>                 > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share
>>                 our response with CSG.
>>                 >
>>                 > Best,
>>                 >
>>                 > Rafik
>>                 >
>>                 > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org
>>                 <mailto:avri at apc.org> <mailto:avri at apc.org
>>                 <mailto:avri at apc.org>>>:
>>                 >
>>                 >     Hi,
>>                 >
>>                 >     I think we could respond that we do not accept
>>                 their proposal
>>                 >
>>                 >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the
>>                 process
>>                 >
>>                 >     - we insist that there be a vote along the
>>                 previous lines - 8 to
>>                 >     succeed.
>>                 >
>>                 >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>                 >
>>                 >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second
>>                 round between top two
>>                 >
>>                 >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd
>>                 round of leader
>>                 >     against NOTA
>>                 >
>>                 >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave
>>                 seat open until we get our
>>                 >     act together.
>>                 >
>>                 >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members
>>                 and NCA  talk until
>>                 >     we get
>>                 >     our act together.
>>                 >
>>                 >     avri
>>                 >
>>                 >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>                 >     >
>>                 >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and
>>                 say we are considering/or
>>                 >     > not their doc and will be proposing something
>>                 or an alternative
>>                 >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us
>>                 - maybe end of next
>>                 >     week?
>>                 >     >
>>                 >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination
>>                 period - say next
>>                 >     week?  or
>>                 >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be
>>                 useful to have the
>>                 >     CSG and
>>                 >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. 
>>                 Agree with CSG whether
>>                 >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>                 >     >
>>                 >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>>                 >     >
>>                 >     > Matthew
>>                 >     >
>>                 >     >
>>                 >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>                 >     >> Hi all,
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >> we really need to develop our response or
>>                 proposal to CSG
>>                 >     quickly. at
>>                 >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >> Best,
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >> Rafik
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>>                 <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>                 >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>                 >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>:
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>     Hi Matt,
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for
>>                 other comments on this
>>                 >     topic.
>>                 >     >>     I think we can start with nomination
>>                 whole we work on the
>>                 >     process
>>                 >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>                 >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we
>>                 have 2 candidates for
>>                 >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find
>>                 other candidates? we
>>                 >     >>     don't have so much time for a long
>>                 nomination period.
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>     I understand that we are having the
>>                 deadline as a mean to press
>>                 >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear
>>                 about the aspects which are
>>                 >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>     Best,
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>     Rafik
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew
>>                 shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>                 >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>>                 >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
>>                 <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
>>                 <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>>:
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that
>>                 we need to deal
>>                 >     with it
>>                 >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg
>>                 before the meeting,
>>                 >     which
>>                 >     >>         was not really discussed further. 
>>                 Then we had some general
>>                 >     >>         discussion about the need to do
>>                 something on the Board
>>                 >     >>         selection process.  People voiced
>>                 their views on different
>>                 >     >>         aspects of the process and there was
>>                 concern over the
>>                 >     >>         timeline, but we did not really
>>                 decide anything (others
>>                 >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed
>>                 some important
>>                 >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he
>>                 wanted to continue in the
>>                 >     >>         role; I announced I was going to
>>                 run.  Then the CSG
>>                 >     proposal
>>                 >     >>         for a process was circulated on
>>                 Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>                 >     to be
>>                 >     >>         general agreement that the CSG
>>                 proposal was not ideal.
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is
>>                 us agreeing a
>>                 >     process and
>>                 >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting
>>                 that announced, so at
>>                 >     >>         least the initial stages of the
>>                 process are underway.
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>         Matthew
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>                 >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to
>>                 resume the discussion on
>>                 >     board
>>                 >     >>>         seat election.
>>                 >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get
>>                 a summary of what
>>                 >     or not
>>                 >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard
>>                 from those who attended
>>                 >     >>>         intersessional?
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>         We also need to outline what are
>>                 our non-negotiable points
>>                 >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA
>>                 participation and so on.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from
>>                 last week is far
>>                 >     from our
>>                 >     >>>         expectations.
>>                 >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a
>>                 call. We can have it
>>                 >     by end
>>                 >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be
>>                 ready.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>         Best,
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>         Rafik
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>                 >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan"
>>                 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>                 >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
>>                 >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>                 >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017]
>>                 Board Seat
>>                 >     Selection Process
>>                 >     >>>         To:
>>                 <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>                 >     >>>       
>>                  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>>
>>                 >     >>>         Cc:
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             All,
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             We probably need a different
>>                 mailing list to finish
>>                 >     >>>             working on the Board Seat
>>                 selection process, and a
>>                 >     small
>>                 >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start
>>                 here, since I think
>>                 >     this
>>                 >     >>>             is the only active mailing list
>>                 with both sides of the
>>                 >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             We basically have no time to
>>                 work this out, and we've
>>                 >     >>>             already started the process
>>                 without knowing what it is
>>                 >     >>>             exactly, since we have now
>>                 received nominations.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation
>>                 of the CPH procedures
>>                 >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also
>>                 attaching the
>>                 >     following
>>                 >     >>>             for consideration:
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an
>>                 exchange between
>>                 >     CSG and
>>                 >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining
>>                 a potential draft
>>                 >     process.
>>                 >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the
>>                 ICANN Staff Memo with a
>>                 >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some
>>                 relevant excerpts from
>>                 >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>                 >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the
>>                 Bylaws, with Section
>>                 >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the
>>                 selection process for Seats
>>                 >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is
>>                 covered in the
>>                 >     Bylaws), and
>>                 >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is
>>                 referred to in Section
>>                 >     11.3(f).
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks
>>                 to both develop and go
>>                 >     >>>             through a process that is
>>                 contemplated to take 21
>>                 >     weeks
>>                 >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk
>>                 about building the
>>                 >     airplane
>>                 >     >>>             in the air.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we
>>                 discussed possible
>>                 >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline,
>>                 but did not come to any
>>                 >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to
>>                 me whether Staff is
>>                 >     >>>             preparing a further revised
>>                 draft.  I'll ask.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have
>>                 not already done so, we
>>                 >     >>>             should put out a call for any
>>                 other nominations ASAP
>>                 >     >>>             (though it would be nice to
>>                 know the end of the
>>                 >     >>>             nomination period).
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             D.  Without making any
>>                 judgments, the CPH process and
>>                 >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are
>>                 significantly different
>>                 >     when
>>                 >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to
>>                 get this process
>>                 >     agreed
>>                 >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given
>>                 the unusual
>>                 >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to
>>                 use this process as
>>                 >     >>>             precedent for any future
>>                 process.  We just need to get
>>                 >     >>>             through this selection.  One
>>                 approach is for NCSG to
>>                 >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at
>>                 the end of the
>>                 >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given
>>                 the gap between
>>                 >     that and
>>                 >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might
>>                 just be better to
>>                 >     arrange a
>>                 >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP
>>                 to move the ball
>>                 >     forward.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             Greg
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that
>>                 important how we got here, but
>>                 >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted
>>                 that the GNSO
>>                 >     Procedures
>>                 >     >>>             were never updated from 2012,
>>                 when the Bylaws deadline
>>                 >     >>>             for naming the Director was
>>                 changed from one month to
>>                 >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then
>>                 six months prior to
>>                 >     being
>>                 >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures
>>                 will need to be
>>                 >     updated in
>>                 >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws
>>                 references are now
>>                 >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft
>>                 bullet-points repeated this
>>                 >     error.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this
>>                 with very little time
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>                 >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>                 >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>                 >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>                 >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message
>>                 ----------
>>                 >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan*
>>                 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>                 >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
>>                 >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>                 >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of
>>                 Interim Board
>>                 >     Selection Process
>>                 >     >>>             To:
>>                 ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>                 >     >>>           
>>                  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional
>>                 Participants,
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion
>>                 draft" of a proposed
>>                 >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process
>>                 based closely on the
>>                 >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the
>>                 Contracted Parties House.
>>                 >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are
>>                 attached, showing changes
>>                 >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be
>>                 found here, where any
>>                 >     >>>             suggested changes can be added
>>                 in "suggest" mode (but
>>                 >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>>                 >     >>>             rights):
>>                 >   
>>                  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>                 >   
>>                  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     
>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>                 >   
>>                  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             We would hope to use this for
>>                 the current 2017 Board
>>                 >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit
>>                 afterward before
>>                 >     making it
>>                 >     >>>             a permanent rather than
>>                 "interim" process.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by
>>                 the membership of
>>                 >     the IPC,
>>                 >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to
>>                 start the discussion on
>>                 >     >>>             this basis, given the short
>>                 amount of time we have for
>>                 >     >>>             this year.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             Thanks!
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP
>>                 Intersessional Teams)
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>                 >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>                 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>                 >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>                 >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>                 >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>                 >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>           
>>                  _______________________________________________
>>                 >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing
>>                 list
>>                 >     >>>           
>>                  Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>                 >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>                 >     >>>           
>>                  <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>                 >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     
>>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>                 >   
>>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>                 >     >>>           
>>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>                 >   
>>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>
>>                 >     >>>       
>>                  _______________________________________________
>>                 >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>                 >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>                 >     <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>                 <mailto: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>
>>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>                 >     >>>       
>>                  <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>>
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >>         --
>>                 >     >>         ------------
>>                 >     >>         Matthew Shears
>>                 >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>                 >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>                 >     >>         + 44 771 2472987
>>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>                 >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>                 >     >>
>>                 >     >> _______________________________________________
>>                 >     >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>                 >     >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>                 <mailto: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>
>>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>                 >     > --
>>                 >     > ------------
>>                 >     > Matthew Shears
>>                 >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>                 >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>                 >     > + 44 771 2472987
>>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>                 >     >
>>                 >     > _______________________________________________
>>                 >     > NCSG-PC mailing list
>>                 >     > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>                 <mailto: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>
>>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>                 >
>>                 >
>>                 >     ---
>>                 >     This email has been checked for viruses by
>>                 Avast antivirus software.
>>                 >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>>
>>                 >
>>                 >     _______________________________________________
>>                 >     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>                 >     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>                 <mailto: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>
>>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>                 >
>>                 >
>>
>>                  
>>                 ---
>>                 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>>                 antivirus software.
>>                 https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>                  
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 egmorris1 at toast.net  Tue Mar  7 19:33:51 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:33:51 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmq5CiXG8EPggX7Rx9CYK_r1zR+sRs+hncYLNoEeys4ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170307134848.GA28696@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <DB3PR05MB52159FCE42EB116D97CE9BFF72F0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThmq5CiXG8EPggX7Rx9CYK_r1zR+sRs+hncYLNoEeys4ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52FC4041-9881-4F83-86D4-BB23AA927909@toast.net>

Hi Rafik,

Staff has taken our proposal, has some concerns and requests for input, we meet on the 15th.

We still have a GNSO public comment period, some engagement with the empowered community, the Board needs to weigh in...at every choke point our, frankly, victory here will be endangered.

Lots to do, lots to monitor. We had and have a fantastic team here and working with our Councilors had an outcome that reflected the NCSG priorities. I welcome Stefania or whoever else joins the team and promise to work with that individual to get them up to super speed as soon as we get to Copenhagen.

Vesting powers on Council with the current structure is a vital ingredient for keeping the NCSG relevant into the future. For those of us who laboured and  continue to labour on
the CCWG getting this right is mandatory for our work to have true ongoing value to the noncommercial community.

Best,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Mar 2017, at 16:12, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks Stefania for volunteering and putting your name for work
> let's see if there are other volunteers, after that we can confirm.
> for those in the bylaws DT, can you please share with us about the status of the work there and what still need to be done?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2017-03-07 22:57 GMT+09:00 Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>:
>> Hi Tapani, PC colleagues
>> I am up for the job in Copenhagen (to start with?)
>> 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 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>> Inviato: marted? 7 marzo 2017 14.48.49
>> A: ncsg-pc
>> Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Replacing Amr in Bylaws DT
>> 
>> Dear Councillors,
>> 
>> Amr Elsadr was one of NCSG's representatives in the Bylaws
>> Drafting Team and as he moved to staff he should be replaced.
>> 
>> The council resolution creating the DT put it upon council
>> members to identify volunteers, so it's up to you now to
>> find replacement for Amr. I would suggest it'd be good for
>> it to be a councillor, although that's not required.
>> 
>> For reference:
>> 
>> Council resolution creating the DT:
>> 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/GNSO+Bylaws+Implementation+Drafting+Team+Home
>> 
>> First message to the DT mailing list:
>> 
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/2016-August/000000.html
>> 
>> DT Home:
>> 
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2
>> 
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/ef1bf672/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Mar  7 20:51:38 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:51:38 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <20170307133638.GB28237@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <58b5573d.8e121c0a.d5650.a6a1@mx.google.com>
 <20170307133638.GB28237@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <20170307185138.ebtfh66dpqo4cynz@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

It turns out meeting with RySG will not be possible after all - we
could not find a time that'd work. :-(

We will still have the meeting with RrSG, however.

RySG suggested we either do a teleconference after Copenhagen
or schedule a meeting in Johannesburg with more time to prepare.

Tapani

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:36:38PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Apologies for running late with this, but looking at the discussion
> and considering we don't have all much time and this is (hopefully)
> beginning of a tradition, we really should be talking more with R*SGs,
> I propose short agendas (first item is same in both):
> 
> 
> RrSG:
> 
> * Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
>   how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.
> 
> * Privacy concerns:
> - RDS, conflicts with law, thick WHOIS
> - PPSAI, way forward, how to accommodate GAC objections
> 
> * DNA, Healthy Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals
> 
> 
> RySG:
> 
> * Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
>   how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.
> 
> * The New gTLD program:
> - how has it impacted your group, brand owners becoming registries,
>   registries and registrars commingling &c
> - the imposition of new rules on legacy gTLDs when contracts are
>   renegotiated: why and how?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Mar  7 21:33:48 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:33:48 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Agenda for PC meeting / Sunday 12th March 17:00
 Copehangen
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn0fhRdESnU20LNujLhy8MUAYDm1KGgycVi7Dj=-J+EhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn0fhRdESnU20LNujLhy8MUAYDm1KGgycVi7Dj=-J+EhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20170307193348.czxhvchfunfpsizp@tarvainen.info>

Hi Rafik,

There should be plenty of time for leftover topics on constituency day
now that the planned RySG visit didn't materialize.

Tapani

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:44:16AM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> as I shared in a previous email, we have to plan for our policy committee
> session this Sunday.
> 
> as draft agenda and open for discussion and amendments:
> 
> 1- Review of GNSO council agenda
>      - Motions discussions/voting
> 2- Topics for discussions:
>     - Board seat election: process and timeline
>     - Ongoing PDPs: any reports from the Saturday sessions
>     - Workstream 2: any reports from full-day meeting
>     - meeting with Data Protection Commissioners prep (TBC)
>     - Public consultation: any statement from NCSG
> 3- AOB
> 
> We should have action items to follow-up those discussions.
> 
> if we cannot cover all topics, we may meet informally during the week and
> take notes of our discussions, sharing them in PC list for record. We also
> have NCSG CD  and I would like to ask Tapani if we can cover remaining
> topics in that day without jeopardizing other agenda topics.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> for reference I copied the Council agenda below:
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)*
> 
> 
> 
> 1.1 - Roll Call
> 
> 
> 
> 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
> 
> 
> 
> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the
> GNSO Operating Procedures:
> 
> 
> 
> Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 19 January 2017, posted on 10
> February 2017.
> 
> Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 16 February 2017, will be
> posted on 8 March 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)*
> 
> 
> 
> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
> topics, to include review of Projects List
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List
> <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins)*
> 
> 
> 
> *3.1 ? Confirmation of GNSO Co-Chair for the Cross Community Working Group
> on New gTLD Auction Proceeds*
> 
> 
> 
> In November 2016, the GNSO Council had approved the Charter for the new
> Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on New gTLD Auction Proceeds and
> appointed Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO co-chair to the group in December
> 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161215-1). On 9
> February 2017, Jonathan Robinson informed the CCWG and the Council that he
> will be stepping down as GNSO co-chair, and requested that the Council
> appoint a successor as soon as is reasonably possible (http://mm.icann.org/
> pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-February/000080.html). As directed by
> the Council following its meeting on 16 February, staff issued a Call for
> Volunteers on 1 March (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/
> 019785.html). Councilor Erika Mann responded to the Call and volunteered
> her services (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019786.html)
> Here the Council will discuss and, if appropriate, approve Erika?s
> candidacy for appointment as the new GNSO co-chair to this CCWG.
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE ? Approval of Charter for a New GNSO Standing
> Selection Committee (15 minutes)*
> 
> On 13 December 2016, Councilors Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris circulated
> for the Council?s consideration a draft document proposing a set of
> criteria and a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to
> future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the
> ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to
> appoint, nominate or endorse candidates (https://gnso.icann.org/en/
> drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf). Following further work
> on the draft document by Susan, Ed and the Council leadership, a proposed
> Charter to create a GNSO Standing Selection Committee that will conduct
> future selections based on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented
> process was circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019734.html) and
> discussed at the Council meeting on 16 February. Here the Council is
> expected to complete its discussions on the remaining open items regarding
> the draft Charter, and vote on a motion to create the new GNSO Standing
> Selection Committee.
> 
> If the new Committee is established, its initial tasks are expected to
> include proposing a slate of GNSO nominees for the upcoming Registration
> Directory Services and Accountability and Transparency Review Teams, as
> well as possibly assisting with the proposed establishment of a Standing
> Panel for Independent Review Processes (see Agenda Item 6, below).
> 
> 4.1 ? Presentation of motion (James Bladel) https://community.icann.org/x/
> lJvRAw
> 
> 4.2 ? Council and community discussion
> 
> 4.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Updated Charter for the Cross Community
> Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes)*
> 
> 
> 
> At its Public Meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India, on 7 November 2016,
> the GNSO Council had approved a motion conditioning the future
> participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization of the CCWG on
> Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) upon a comprehensive review of the group?s
> Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with the Framework of Uniform
> Principles for CCWGs that had been adopted recently by the ccNSO and GNSO
> Councils (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-
> principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In its resolution, the GNSO
> Council had noted that the CCWG-IG?s future work is expected to be subject
> to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables, and had
> requested that, by ICANN58, the CCWG-IG was to report on its findings,
> which report may include a revised charter or a recommendation to
> reconstitute the group under a new structure
> (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions
> - 20161107-3 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-3>).
> 
> 
> 
> Here the Council will receive an update and report from the CCWG-IG
> co-chairs, and discuss next steps in relation to the GNSO?s continued
> participation as a Chartering Organization of this CCWG.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-IG co-chairs)
> 
> 
> 
> 5.2 ? Council and community discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 5.3 ? Next steps
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Activities of the CCWG-Accountability
> Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (15 minutes)*
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 February 2017, the Independent Review Process Implementation
> Oversight Team (IRP IOT) of the ongoing CCWG-Accountability informed all
> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) that SO/ACs
> will shortly be expected to work with ICANN to establish a Standing Panel
> for future IRPs brought under the revised ICANN Bylaws (
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019790.html) This is a
> four-step process that needs to be completed in order for the
> newly-constituted IRP under the revised ICANN Bylaws to be used. Here the
> Council will receive an update from the GNSO?s participants in the IRP IOT,
> and discuss next steps in relation to this request and any additional
> actions that are expected to be forthcoming in the near term for the GNSO
> Council and community.
> 
> 
> 
> 6.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-Accountability IRT IOT representatives)
> 
> 
> 
> 6.2 ? Council and community discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 6.3 ? Next steps
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposed Council Request in relation to
> Letter from Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (10 minutes)*
> 
> On 15 December 2016, the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) sent
> a letter to the GNSO Council describing a number of privacy law
> developments and how the IRT has considered them (see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf).
> The letter noted that the IRT?s implementation plan has been published for
> public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-
> implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en) and that the
> IRT does not currently expect the developments in question to affect the
> timeline for transition to thick WHOIS. The Council discussed the letter at
> its meeting on 19 January 2017, at which Councilors Erika Mann and Michele
> Neylon volunteered to draft a possible response to the IRT from the Council
> for Council consideration. On 2 February 2017, Councilor Erika Mann
> circulated a draft Council request for an update on the legal review that
> had been done previously (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-
> February/019729.html). Here the Council will continue its discussion of the
> draft request with a view toward deciding on its further actions on this
> topic, including whether and when to request the update, and whether the
> scope of the request (if one is to be sent) should remain unchanged from
> the previous legal review.
> 
> 7.1 ? Status summary (Council Chairs and Erika Mann)
> 
> 7.2 ? Council and community discussion
> 
> 7.3 ? Next steps
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 8: JOINT DISCUSSION ? Meeting with ICANN?s Global Domains Division
> (30 minutes)*
> 
> 
> 
> At previous ICANN Public Meetings, the GNSO Council and community had held
> regular discussion sessions with senior staff from ICANN?s Global Domains
> Division (GDD). This section of the Council?s Public Meeting at ICANN58 has
> been added to allow the GNSO community to interact with GDD senior staff,
> to discuss topics of current interest to the GNSO.
> 
> 
> 
> 8.1 ? Introductions (Council Chairs and GDD senior staff)
> 
> 
> 
> 8.2 ? Open discussion
> 
> 
> 
> *Item 9: OPEN MICROPHONE & ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)*



From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar  8 01:24:10 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:24:10 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [CCWG-ACCT]
	CCWG-Accountability-WS2-GoodFaith-PublicConsultationon-February2017
	Has been posted
In-Reply-To: <CAPhodg+SFe=AAppEwZpiRaN=2zpR-w5TjyHp3yKt5HAT0isjSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPhodg+SFe=AAppEwZpiRaN=2zpR-w5TjyHp3yKt5HAT0isjSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Gwnel7cl2lMIXheZ5Fbv8ksxKNx_VpsO0ID_nxf_Q_9jlI83QWCuOBNd2Fb9kdFkau-ueVEXnCaElPZtqUXNipRwiQCBBEOUkTfjfI7z5uc=@ferdeline.com>

Another one we need to comment on.



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-GoodFaith-PublicConsultationon-February2017 Has been posted
Local Time: 7 March 2017 7:12 PM
UTC Time: 7 March 2017 19:12
From: turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>


All,

Please note that the public consultation on the Good Faith recommendations has been posted at:


https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-guidelines-good-faith-2017-03-07-en

and closes on 24 April.

Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability WS2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/ba735a6b/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar  8 01:28:52 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:28:52 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <20170307185138.ebtfh66dpqo4cynz@tarvainen.info>
References: <58b5573d.8e121c0a.d5650.a6a1@mx.google.com>
 <20170307133638.GB28237@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170307185138.ebtfh66dpqo4cynz@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <3DMQjE7uiC0yWGpHIn1SuGyUxN74ibqLkkzkhb_AE_h3dN87wwmgqylJ9wJdDRahXJnWeWF2UU7kOsRryao7UKE_hsppnyGqqa0-Awe_ELA=@ferdeline.com>

What a pity. At least we have RrSG still. I suggest we meet with RySG in Johannesburg, so that we have adequate time to prepare.



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
Local Time: 7 March 2017 6:51 PM
UTC Time: 7 March 2017 18:51
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Dear all,

It turns out meeting with RySG will not be possible after all - we
could not find a time that'd work. :-(

We will still have the meeting with RrSG, however.

RySG suggested we either do a teleconference after Copenhagen
or schedule a meeting in Johannesburg with more time to prepare.

Tapani

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:36:38PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Apologies for running late with this, but looking at the discussion
> and considering we don't have all much time and this is (hopefully)
> beginning of a tradition, we really should be talking more with R*SGs,
> I propose short agendas (first item is same in both):
>
>
> RrSG:
>
> * Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
> how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.
>
> * Privacy concerns:
> - RDS, conflicts with law, thick WHOIS
> - PPSAI, way forward, how to accommodate GAC objections
>
> * DNA, Healthy Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals
>
>
> RySG:
>
> * Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
> how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.
>
> * The New gTLD program:
> - how has it impacted your group, brand owners becoming registries,
> registries and registrars commingling &c
> - the imposition of new rules on legacy gTLDs when contracts are
> renegotiated: why and how?
>
>
> --
> 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/20170307/b1eab70f/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Mar  8 01:32:33 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:32:33 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [CCWG-ACCT]
 CCWG-Accountability-WS2-GoodFaith-PublicConsultationon-February2017 Has
 been posted
In-Reply-To: <Gwnel7cl2lMIXheZ5Fbv8ksxKNx_VpsO0ID_nxf_Q_9jlI83QWCuOBNd2Fb9kdFkau-ueVEXnCaElPZtqUXNipRwiQCBBEOUkTfjfI7z5uc=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAPhodg+SFe=AAppEwZpiRaN=2zpR-w5TjyHp3yKt5HAT0isjSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Gwnel7cl2lMIXheZ5Fbv8ksxKNx_VpsO0ID_nxf_Q_9jlI83QWCuOBNd2Fb9kdFkau-ueVEXnCaElPZtqUXNipRwiQCBBEOUkTfjfI7z5uc=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmoRuc0fBHzzk2bZo5X+g2FD5Yj2t6bBay-eufaOByTyA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

adding Robin in cc since this should be handled by the NCSG CCWG group and
coordinate with PC.
so we have 2 ongoing public comments from CCWG.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-08 8:24 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Another one we need to comment on.
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-GoodFaith-
> PublicConsultationon-February2017 Has been posted
> Local Time: 7 March 2017 7:12 PM
> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 19:12
> From: turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-
> community at icann.org>
>
> All,
>
> Please note that the public consultation on the Good Faith recommendations
> has been posted at:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-guidelines-
> good-faith-2017-03-07-en
>
> and closes on 24 April.
>
> Bernard Turcotte
> ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability WS2
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170308/ca2743a3/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Mar  8 01:46:43 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:46:43 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <3DMQjE7uiC0yWGpHIn1SuGyUxN74ibqLkkzkhb_AE_h3dN87wwmgqylJ9wJdDRahXJnWeWF2UU7kOsRryao7UKE_hsppnyGqqa0-Awe_ELA=@ferdeline.com>
References: <58b5573d.8e121c0a.d5650.a6a1@mx.google.com>
 <20170307133638.GB28237@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170307185138.ebtfh66dpqo4cynz@tarvainen.info>
 <3DMQjE7uiC0yWGpHIn1SuGyUxN74ibqLkkzkhb_AE_h3dN87wwmgqylJ9wJdDRahXJnWeWF2UU7kOsRryao7UKE_hsppnyGqqa0-Awe_ELA=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkJNHwUjkL=3s5jZ+u=btqGUZQ5c4hFJOQpfS6PvSWO3A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Johannesburg as policy forum can be even more challenging with less
available slots for internal meetings.
we can suggest from now having breakfast and/lunch working meeting with
registries, registrars but also other group.
I see that CSG is having meeting with GAC in copehangen and we didn't have
the joint meeting with ALAC since a while, so we can request meeting with
them in Johanesburg.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-08 8:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> What a pity. At least we have RrSG still. I suggest we meet with RySG in
> Johannesburg, so that we have adequate time to prepare.
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
> Local Time: 7 March 2017 6:51 PM
> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 18:51
> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> Dear all,
>
> It turns out meeting with RySG will not be possible after all - we
> could not find a time that'd work. :-(
>
> We will still have the meeting with RrSG, however.
>
> RySG suggested we either do a teleconference after Copenhagen
> or schedule a meeting in Johannesburg with more time to prepare.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:36:38PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Apologies for running late with this, but looking at the discussion
> > and considering we don't have all much time and this is (hopefully)
> > beginning of a tradition, we really should be talking more with R*SGs,
> > I propose short agendas (first item is same in both):
> >
> >
> > RrSG:
> >
> > * Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
> > how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.
> >
> > * Privacy concerns:
> > - RDS, conflicts with law, thick WHOIS
> > - PPSAI, way forward, how to accommodate GAC objections
> >
> > * DNA, Healthy Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals
> >
> >
> > RySG:
> >
> > * Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
> > how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.
> >
> > * The New gTLD program:
> > - how has it impacted your group, brand owners becoming registries,
> > registries and registrars commingling &c
> > - the imposition of new rules on legacy gTLDs when contracts are
> > renegotiated: why and how?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170308/29505d36/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar  8 02:04:37 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 19:04:37 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [community] Non-Contracted Parties House >
	Intersessional 2017 - Documents
In-Reply-To: <1770219755.75284.1488920281127.JavaMail.tomcat@community1.lax.icann.org>
References: <1770219755.75284.1488920281127.JavaMail.tomcat@community1.lax.icann.org>
Message-ID: <LWPjuKAGXzdqaYWrvVWHMgkwcbnl6rpH5i3Fxs_V_vSW-Ip7ZAef7y1biiwZIrU8HrH2q82UQKmefCQXSK6AEI6UBQtgQAnQUUqAnMVAQdg=@ferdeline.com>

Tuesday night document dump, as people prepare to travel to Copenhagen...



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [community] Non-Contracted Parties House > Intersessional 2017 - Documents
Local Time: 7 March 2017 8:58 PM
UTC Time: 7 March 2017 20:58
From: no-reply at icann.org
To: icann at ferdeline.com







[Ozan Sahin](    https://community.icann.org/display/~ozan.sahin ) edited the page:

[Intersessional 2017 - Documents](https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2017+-+Documents)






Useful Documents

[Plenary Lunch - Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards](#)

[Plenary Lunch - Locating Compliance Metrics on ICANN Website](#)

[Plenary Lunch - The 10 Most Abused Top Level Domains](#)

[Plenary Session #2 - Compare Final Draft v NCPH Process for Selecting GNSO Council Vice Chair](#)

[Plenary Session #2 - 2017 Board Seat 14 Election Timeline 13 February 2017](#)

[Plenary Session #3 - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Community Comment Update](#)

[Plenary Session #6 - NCPH Presenting](#)

[Plenary Session #6 - NCPH Call for GNSO Structural Review](#)

[Meeting Report - Co-chair Session Notes/Action items/ Next Steps](#)

[ICANN Response to Questions from ICANN Compliance Session](#)

[GNSO NCPH Intersessional Meeting 2017 Evaluation Survey](#)


[View Online](https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2017+-+Documents)  ? [View Changes](https://community.icann.org/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=63144488&revisedVersion=8&originalVersion=7)  ? [Like](https://community.icann.org/plugins/likes/like.action?contentId=63144488)
[Stop watching page](https://community.icann.org/users/removepagenotification.action?pageId=63144488)  ? [Manage notifications](https://community.icann.org/users/editmyemailsettings.action)

This message was sent by [Atlassian Confluence](http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence) 5.8.18, [Team Collaboration Software](http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/overview/team-collaboration-software?utm_source=email-footer)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/f0b4c059/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: avatar_2bb41e013ebb70a0ce938433f4bdbbbf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 121441 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/f0b4c059/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: page-icon.png
Type: image/png
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170307/f0b4c059/attachment-0001.png>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Mar  8 03:26:17 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:26:17 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Competition,
 Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of
 Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmh96rgwcmqU+j0Lque3mLquEyEqzbp2kLdDU0XBFWZSw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

another public comment to cover and this time from a review team.
we need volunteers to take lead on drafting our comment, any idea?

Best,

Rafik





*From: *ICANN News Alert <no-reply at external.icann.org>
*Reply-To: *"no-reply at external.icann.org" <no-reply at external.icann.org>
*Date: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:56 PM
*To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
*Subject: *[Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and
Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs
Available for Public Comment



[image: CANN][icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=pzz55emK10q6EKJvv-VkJIOYkKzBCN3UZxc_1ynBnYg&e=>
News Alert

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-03-07-en[icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2-2D2017-2D03-2D07-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=w9VimnXWL4VS1h9f6a7WY2T9N7ZLiPJwZSlStNeJtpU&e=>
------------------------------
Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of
Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment

7 March 2017

LOS ANGELES ? 7 March 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) today announced the publication of the *Draft* Report
from the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team
with its recommendations for the New gTLD Program.

*Executive summary[icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2Dexecutive-2Dsummary-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=uNzRI4W_L6__Ww_1X4vi-AM9zO8Vtdp5M-wWrmXi2do&e=>.
[PDF, 71 KB]*

*Summary of Recommendations[icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2Dsummary-2Drecommendations-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=MYhbq1bBP8sjktQvWqYTb6mV-3rArQV8lQmwUv1lPTI&e=>.
[PDF, 1.34 MB]*

*Read the report[icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=ogoEvIwMmR_8NNgqWnTznhAni-wamrtfiqoZYdzxw0c&e=>.
[PDF, 3.91 MB]*

The report examines the extent to which the introduction of new generic
top-level domains (gTLDs) has promoted competition, consumer trust and
consumer choice in the domain name system. It also assesses the
effectiveness of the safeguards ICANN has implemented to mitigate issues
related to the introduction of new gTLDs. The report is available for
public comment through 27 April 2017. Feedback will be incorporated into a
Final Report.

*Comment on the report[icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2D2017-2D03-2D07-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=P5b-oodQEx4nnZvW9W_J4KLsxEYIrbgH_D8sIS35OOE&e=>.*

The review team findings include the following:

   - New gTLDs currently account for about 9 percent of registrations in
   all gTLDs, which suggests that registrants are making use of a broader
   range of gTLDs.
   - More than half of new registrations of gTLDs have been in new gTLD
   strings. If ccTLDs are included, registrations are divided roughly into
   thirds among new gTLDs, legacy gTLDs and ccTLDs.
   - ICANN contractual compliance has reported that 96 percent of
   registries are performing the analysis that is required to determine if
   they are being used to perpetrate security threats.
   - At present, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that voluntary
   public interest commitments do not negatively impact the public interest
   prior to going into effect. Therefore, it is important for voluntary PICs
   to be made available to the community during the public comment period of
   the application process.
   - Outreach programs that were put in place to facilitate and encourage
   applications from the Global South were thought to be both poorly monitored
   and largely ineffective.

To learn more about the report findings and recommendations, *read the
blog[icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_competition-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dchoice-2Dwe-2Dve-2Dshared-2Dour-2Dthoughts-2Dplease-2Dshare-2Dyours&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Da0QI0Ko3lEjXj25r5bSAjeIk7mlF4AFe1q2sFCLEcc&e=>*
.

*More Information*

The CCT Review Team will meet at ICANN58 and brief the community on its
findings and recommendations at their consultation session on 12 March ? 9
AM CET in Hall A3. The CCT Review Team work and detailed ICANN58 Program
can also be followed via their dedicated wikipage[community.icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D56135383&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Q3nRgPxq1d4vo6R3E640qlg6QizqnQbxH32MR_SRMGI&e=>
.
Background

The Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team was
convened in 2015 under the Affirmation of Commitments. Under ICANN's new
Bylaws, the review is now referred to as a "Specific Review".

Specific Reviews[icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_reviews_specific-2Dreviews&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=CeQgSzVBxu0ambD8o-_OxNbGotcO41w5dahuHnFkX5c&e=>
are mandated by ICANN Bylaws and are crucial to the legitimacy and
accountability of ICANN. Specific Reviews serve as ICANN's progress report
to the world. The reviews demonstrate how ICANN delivers on its commitments
and identify areas where ICANN can improve. Specific Reviews are conducted
by members of the stakeholder community who look at past processes, actions
and outcomes in order to make recommendations to improve future performance.
About ICANN

*ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global
Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an
address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be
unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate
and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in
1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with
participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the
Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and
develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and
facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more
information please visit: www.icann.org[icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=qeW3TbhtjJSIJTd0bWFthBephlCl7EeGrdGr_LzoNsg&e=>.*



This message was sent to steve.chan at icann.org from:

ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront
Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

Email Marketing by [image: Contact - Try It Free!][icontact.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icontact.com_a.pl_144186&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=BUymwfBKoA-0qBI9dwlsGHlkldvVmydiNm9-Qva34Uw&e=>

*Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.icontact.com_icp_mmail-2Dmprofile.pl-3Fr-3D13773709-26l-3D6333-26s-3D6C1A-26m-3D1001089-26c-3D165637&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Z0EYBNm5Ca4GLLmbpt7lUCcXr4HwT63IH6R_A2iERrM&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170308/cc37d1fd/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Mar  8 03:50:03 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:50:03 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [community] Non-Contracted Parties House >
 Intersessional 2017 - Documents
In-Reply-To: <LWPjuKAGXzdqaYWrvVWHMgkwcbnl6rpH5i3Fxs_V_vSW-Ip7ZAef7y1biiwZIrU8HrH2q82UQKmefCQXSK6AEI6UBQtgQAnQUUqAnMVAQdg=@ferdeline.com>
References: <1770219755.75284.1488920281127.JavaMail.tomcat@community1.lax.icann.org>
 <LWPjuKAGXzdqaYWrvVWHMgkwcbnl6rpH5i3Fxs_V_vSW-Ip7ZAef7y1biiwZIrU8HrH2q82UQKmefCQXSK6AEI6UBQtgQAnQUUqAnMVAQdg=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=m0c_TmtqoOyC2H=FpNDvOp8C7poWSdsPx_VKvqzd-Lw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Thanks Ayden for sharing this.
we raised the issue of compliance several times and just lately Kathy
kindly suggested some questions for the NCSG-Board joint meeting on that
topic.
I am wondering if we should handle this in a more systematic manner to be
more effective.  For example, setup an ad-hoc group for volunteers with a
mailing list to monitor closely the topic and flag an issue we should
cover, working on position paper to summarize our viewpoints on compliance
and the safeguards we need for registrants etc.  NCSG PC would support such
effort.
looking forward your suggestion on how to move forward on this.

Best,

Rafik


2017-03-08 9:04 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Tuesday night document dump, as people prepare to travel to Copenhagen...
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [community] Non-Contracted Parties House > Intersessional 2017 -
> Documents
> Local Time: 7 March 2017 8:58 PM
> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 20:58
> From: no-reply at icann.org
> To: icann at ferdeline.com
>
>
>
> Ozan Sahin <https://community.icann.org/display/~ozan.sahin> edited the
> page:
> *Intersessional 2017 - Documents*
> <https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2017+-+Documents>
> Useful Documents
> Plenary Lunch - Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards
> <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> Plenary Lunch - Locating Compliance Metrics on ICANN Website
> <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> Plenary Lunch - The 10 Most Abused Top Level Domains
> <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> Plenary Session #2 - Compare Final Draft v NCPH Process for Selecting GNSO
> Council Vice Chair <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> Plenary Session #2 - 2017 Board Seat 14 Election Timeline 13 February 2017
> <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> Plenary Session #3 - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Community Comment
> Update <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> Plenary Session #6 - NCPH Presenting <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> Plenary Session #6 - NCPH Call for GNSO Structural Review
> <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> Meeting Report - Co-chair Session Notes/Action items/ Next Steps
> <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> ICANN Response to Questions from ICANN Compliance Session
> <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> GNSO NCPH Intersessional Meeting 2017 Evaluation Survey
> <#m_-4837053977852860092_>
> View Online
> <https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2017+-+Documents>
> ? View Changes
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=63144488&revisedVersion=8&originalVersion=7>
> ? Like
> <https://community.icann.org/plugins/likes/like.action?contentId=63144488>
> Stop watching page
> <https://community.icann.org/users/removepagenotification.action?pageId=63144488>
> ? Manage notifications
> <https://community.icann.org/users/editmyemailsettings.action>
> This message was sent by Atlassian Confluence
> <http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence> 5.8.18, Team Collaboration
> Software
> <http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/overview/team-collaboration-software?utm_source=email-footer>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170308/f54aa474/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: avatar_2bb41e013ebb70a0ce938433f4bdbbbf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 121441 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170308/f54aa474/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: page-icon.png
Type: image/png
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170308/f54aa474/attachment-0001.png>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Mar  8 05:32:32 2017
From: avri at acm.org (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:32:32 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Agenda for PC meeting / Sunday 12th March 17:00
 Copehangen
In-Reply-To: <20170307193348.czxhvchfunfpsizp@tarvainen.info>
References: <CAH5sThn0fhRdESnU20LNujLhy8MUAYDm1KGgycVi7Dj=-J+EhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170307193348.czxhvchfunfpsizp@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <38aa8f19-33bb-b500-6f6d-b0beb2d033c3@acm.org>

Hi,

Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org> from PIR could come and talk about the SCDRP
or any other PIR topic.

He is coming to NCUC, but perhaps we also might bring him to NCSG.
Though it may be late for his schedule.

avri


On 07-Mar-17 14:33, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> There should be plenty of time for leftover topics on constituency day
> now that the planned RySG visit didn't materialize.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:44:16AM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> as I shared in a previous email, we have to plan for our policy committee
>> session this Sunday.
>>
>> as draft agenda and open for discussion and amendments:
>>
>> 1- Review of GNSO council agenda
>>      - Motions discussions/voting
>> 2- Topics for discussions:
>>     - Board seat election: process and timeline
>>     - Ongoing PDPs: any reports from the Saturday sessions
>>     - Workstream 2: any reports from full-day meeting
>>     - meeting with Data Protection Commissioners prep (TBC)
>>     - Public consultation: any statement from NCSG
>> 3- AOB
>>
>> We should have action items to follow-up those discussions.
>>
>> if we cannot cover all topics, we may meet informally during the week and
>> take notes of our discussions, sharing them in PC list for record. We also
>> have NCSG CD  and I would like to ask Tapani if we can cover remaining
>> topics in that day without jeopardizing other agenda topics.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> for reference I copied the Council agenda below:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)*
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.1 - Roll Call
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the
>> GNSO Operating Procedures:
>>
>>
>>
>> Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 19 January 2017, posted on 10
>> February 2017.
>>
>> Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 16 February 2017, will be
>> posted on 8 March 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)*
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
>> topics, to include review of Projects List
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List
>> <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins)*
>>
>>
>>
>> *3.1 ? Confirmation of GNSO Co-Chair for the Cross Community Working Group
>> on New gTLD Auction Proceeds*
>>
>>
>>
>> In November 2016, the GNSO Council had approved the Charter for the new
>> Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on New gTLD Auction Proceeds and
>> appointed Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO co-chair to the group in December
>> 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161215-1). On 9
>> February 2017, Jonathan Robinson informed the CCWG and the Council that he
>> will be stepping down as GNSO co-chair, and requested that the Council
>> appoint a successor as soon as is reasonably possible (http://mm.icann.org/
>> pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-February/000080.html). As directed by
>> the Council following its meeting on 16 February, staff issued a Call for
>> Volunteers on 1 March (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/
>> 019785.html). Councilor Erika Mann responded to the Call and volunteered
>> her services (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019786.html)
>> Here the Council will discuss and, if appropriate, approve Erika?s
>> candidacy for appointment as the new GNSO co-chair to this CCWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE ? Approval of Charter for a New GNSO Standing
>> Selection Committee (15 minutes)*
>>
>> On 13 December 2016, Councilors Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris circulated
>> for the Council?s consideration a draft document proposing a set of
>> criteria and a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to
>> future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the
>> ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to
>> appoint, nominate or endorse candidates (https://gnso.icann.org/en/
>> drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf). Following further work
>> on the draft document by Susan, Ed and the Council leadership, a proposed
>> Charter to create a GNSO Standing Selection Committee that will conduct
>> future selections based on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented
>> process was circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019734.html) and
>> discussed at the Council meeting on 16 February. Here the Council is
>> expected to complete its discussions on the remaining open items regarding
>> the draft Charter, and vote on a motion to create the new GNSO Standing
>> Selection Committee.
>>
>> If the new Committee is established, its initial tasks are expected to
>> include proposing a slate of GNSO nominees for the upcoming Registration
>> Directory Services and Accountability and Transparency Review Teams, as
>> well as possibly assisting with the proposed establishment of a Standing
>> Panel for Independent Review Processes (see Agenda Item 6, below).
>>
>> 4.1 ? Presentation of motion (James Bladel) https://community.icann.org/x/
>> lJvRAw
>>
>> 4.2 ? Council and community discussion
>>
>> 4.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Updated Charter for the Cross Community
>> Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes)*
>>
>>
>>
>> At its Public Meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India, on 7 November 2016,
>> the GNSO Council had approved a motion conditioning the future
>> participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization of the CCWG on
>> Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) upon a comprehensive review of the group?s
>> Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with the Framework of Uniform
>> Principles for CCWGs that had been adopted recently by the ccNSO and GNSO
>> Councils (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-
>> principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In its resolution, the GNSO
>> Council had noted that the CCWG-IG?s future work is expected to be subject
>> to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables, and had
>> requested that, by ICANN58, the CCWG-IG was to report on its findings,
>> which report may include a revised charter or a recommendation to
>> reconstitute the group under a new structure
>> (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions
>> - 20161107-3 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-3>).
>>
>>
>>
>> Here the Council will receive an update and report from the CCWG-IG
>> co-chairs, and discuss next steps in relation to the GNSO?s continued
>> participation as a Chartering Organization of this CCWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-IG co-chairs)
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.2 ? Council and community discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.3 ? Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Activities of the CCWG-Accountability
>> Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (15 minutes)*
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 February 2017, the Independent Review Process Implementation
>> Oversight Team (IRP IOT) of the ongoing CCWG-Accountability informed all
>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) that SO/ACs
>> will shortly be expected to work with ICANN to establish a Standing Panel
>> for future IRPs brought under the revised ICANN Bylaws (
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019790.html) This is a
>> four-step process that needs to be completed in order for the
>> newly-constituted IRP under the revised ICANN Bylaws to be used. Here the
>> Council will receive an update from the GNSO?s participants in the IRP IOT,
>> and discuss next steps in relation to this request and any additional
>> actions that are expected to be forthcoming in the near term for the GNSO
>> Council and community.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-Accountability IRT IOT representatives)
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.2 ? Council and community discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.3 ? Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposed Council Request in relation to
>> Letter from Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (10 minutes)*
>>
>> On 15 December 2016, the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) sent
>> a letter to the GNSO Council describing a number of privacy law
>> developments and how the IRT has considered them (see
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf).
>> The letter noted that the IRT?s implementation plan has been published for
>> public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-
>> implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en) and that the
>> IRT does not currently expect the developments in question to affect the
>> timeline for transition to thick WHOIS. The Council discussed the letter at
>> its meeting on 19 January 2017, at which Councilors Erika Mann and Michele
>> Neylon volunteered to draft a possible response to the IRT from the Council
>> for Council consideration. On 2 February 2017, Councilor Erika Mann
>> circulated a draft Council request for an update on the legal review that
>> had been done previously (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-
>> February/019729.html). Here the Council will continue its discussion of the
>> draft request with a view toward deciding on its further actions on this
>> topic, including whether and when to request the update, and whether the
>> scope of the request (if one is to be sent) should remain unchanged from
>> the previous legal review.
>>
>> 7.1 ? Status summary (Council Chairs and Erika Mann)
>>
>> 7.2 ? Council and community discussion
>>
>> 7.3 ? Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 8: JOINT DISCUSSION ? Meeting with ICANN?s Global Domains Division
>> (30 minutes)*
>>
>>
>>
>> At previous ICANN Public Meetings, the GNSO Council and community had held
>> regular discussion sessions with senior staff from ICANN?s Global Domains
>> Division (GDD). This section of the Council?s Public Meeting at ICANN58 has
>> been added to allow the GNSO community to interact with GDD senior staff,
>> to discuss topics of current interest to the GNSO.
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.1 ? Introductions (Council Chairs and GDD senior staff)
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.2 ? Open discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 9: OPEN MICROPHONE & ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)*
> _______________________________________________
> 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Mar  8 07:34:02 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 00:34:02 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Agenda for PC meeting / Sunday 12th March 17:00
 Copehangen
In-Reply-To: <20170307193348.czxhvchfunfpsizp@tarvainen.info>
References: <CAH5sThn0fhRdESnU20LNujLhy8MUAYDm1KGgycVi7Dj=-J+EhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170307193348.czxhvchfunfpsizp@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <23d640b5-9cec-1738-0c81-684b1e3185b7@mail.utoronto.ca>

Please can we tell Peter Kimpian what time he and the data commissioners 
and UN rapporteur should show up?

cheers Stephanie


On 2017-03-07 14:33, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> There should be plenty of time for leftover topics on constituency day
> now that the planned RySG visit didn't materialize.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:44:16AM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> as I shared in a previous email, we have to plan for our policy committee
>> session this Sunday.
>>
>> as draft agenda and open for discussion and amendments:
>>
>> 1- Review of GNSO council agenda
>>       - Motions discussions/voting
>> 2- Topics for discussions:
>>      - Board seat election: process and timeline
>>      - Ongoing PDPs: any reports from the Saturday sessions
>>      - Workstream 2: any reports from full-day meeting
>>      - meeting with Data Protection Commissioners prep (TBC)
>>      - Public consultation: any statement from NCSG
>> 3- AOB
>>
>> We should have action items to follow-up those discussions.
>>
>> if we cannot cover all topics, we may meet informally during the week and
>> take notes of our discussions, sharing them in PC list for record. We also
>> have NCSG CD  and I would like to ask Tapani if we can cover remaining
>> topics in that day without jeopardizing other agenda topics.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> for reference I copied the Council agenda below:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)*
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.1 - Roll Call
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the
>> GNSO Operating Procedures:
>>
>>
>>
>> Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 19 January 2017, posted on 10
>> February 2017.
>>
>> Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 16 February 2017, will be
>> posted on 8 March 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)*
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
>> topics, to include review of Projects List
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List
>> <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins)*
>>
>>
>>
>> *3.1 ? Confirmation of GNSO Co-Chair for the Cross Community Working Group
>> on New gTLD Auction Proceeds*
>>
>>
>>
>> In November 2016, the GNSO Council had approved the Charter for the new
>> Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on New gTLD Auction Proceeds and
>> appointed Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO co-chair to the group in December
>> 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161215-1). On 9
>> February 2017, Jonathan Robinson informed the CCWG and the Council that he
>> will be stepping down as GNSO co-chair, and requested that the Council
>> appoint a successor as soon as is reasonably possible (http://mm.icann.org/
>> pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-February/000080.html). As directed by
>> the Council following its meeting on 16 February, staff issued a Call for
>> Volunteers on 1 March (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/
>> 019785.html). Councilor Erika Mann responded to the Call and volunteered
>> her services (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019786.html)
>> Here the Council will discuss and, if appropriate, approve Erika?s
>> candidacy for appointment as the new GNSO co-chair to this CCWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE ? Approval of Charter for a New GNSO Standing
>> Selection Committee (15 minutes)*
>>
>> On 13 December 2016, Councilors Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris circulated
>> for the Council?s consideration a draft document proposing a set of
>> criteria and a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to
>> future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the
>> ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to
>> appoint, nominate or endorse candidates (https://gnso.icann.org/en/
>> drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf). Following further work
>> on the draft document by Susan, Ed and the Council leadership, a proposed
>> Charter to create a GNSO Standing Selection Committee that will conduct
>> future selections based on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented
>> process was circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019734.html) and
>> discussed at the Council meeting on 16 February. Here the Council is
>> expected to complete its discussions on the remaining open items regarding
>> the draft Charter, and vote on a motion to create the new GNSO Standing
>> Selection Committee.
>>
>> If the new Committee is established, its initial tasks are expected to
>> include proposing a slate of GNSO nominees for the upcoming Registration
>> Directory Services and Accountability and Transparency Review Teams, as
>> well as possibly assisting with the proposed establishment of a Standing
>> Panel for Independent Review Processes (see Agenda Item 6, below).
>>
>> 4.1 ? Presentation of motion (James Bladel) https://community.icann.org/x/
>> lJvRAw
>>
>> 4.2 ? Council and community discussion
>>
>> 4.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Updated Charter for the Cross Community
>> Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes)*
>>
>>
>>
>> At its Public Meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India, on 7 November 2016,
>> the GNSO Council had approved a motion conditioning the future
>> participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization of the CCWG on
>> Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) upon a comprehensive review of the group?s
>> Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with the Framework of Uniform
>> Principles for CCWGs that had been adopted recently by the ccNSO and GNSO
>> Councils (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-
>> principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In its resolution, the GNSO
>> Council had noted that the CCWG-IG?s future work is expected to be subject
>> to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables, and had
>> requested that, by ICANN58, the CCWG-IG was to report on its findings,
>> which report may include a revised charter or a recommendation to
>> reconstitute the group under a new structure
>> (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions
>> - 20161107-3 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-3>).
>>
>>
>>
>> Here the Council will receive an update and report from the CCWG-IG
>> co-chairs, and discuss next steps in relation to the GNSO?s continued
>> participation as a Chartering Organization of this CCWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-IG co-chairs)
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.2 ? Council and community discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.3 ? Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Activities of the CCWG-Accountability
>> Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (15 minutes)*
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 February 2017, the Independent Review Process Implementation
>> Oversight Team (IRP IOT) of the ongoing CCWG-Accountability informed all
>> ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) that SO/ACs
>> will shortly be expected to work with ICANN to establish a Standing Panel
>> for future IRPs brought under the revised ICANN Bylaws (
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019790.html) This is a
>> four-step process that needs to be completed in order for the
>> newly-constituted IRP under the revised ICANN Bylaws to be used. Here the
>> Council will receive an update from the GNSO?s participants in the IRP IOT,
>> and discuss next steps in relation to this request and any additional
>> actions that are expected to be forthcoming in the near term for the GNSO
>> Council and community.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-Accountability IRT IOT representatives)
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.2 ? Council and community discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> 6.3 ? Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposed Council Request in relation to
>> Letter from Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (10 minutes)*
>>
>> On 15 December 2016, the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) sent
>> a letter to the GNSO Council describing a number of privacy law
>> developments and how the IRT has considered them (see
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf).
>> The letter noted that the IRT?s implementation plan has been published for
>> public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-
>> implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en) and that the
>> IRT does not currently expect the developments in question to affect the
>> timeline for transition to thick WHOIS. The Council discussed the letter at
>> its meeting on 19 January 2017, at which Councilors Erika Mann and Michele
>> Neylon volunteered to draft a possible response to the IRT from the Council
>> for Council consideration. On 2 February 2017, Councilor Erika Mann
>> circulated a draft Council request for an update on the legal review that
>> had been done previously (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-
>> February/019729.html). Here the Council will continue its discussion of the
>> draft request with a view toward deciding on its further actions on this
>> topic, including whether and when to request the update, and whether the
>> scope of the request (if one is to be sent) should remain unchanged from
>> the previous legal review.
>>
>> 7.1 ? Status summary (Council Chairs and Erika Mann)
>>
>> 7.2 ? Council and community discussion
>>
>> 7.3 ? Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 8: JOINT DISCUSSION ? Meeting with ICANN?s Global Domains Division
>> (30 minutes)*
>>
>>
>>
>> At previous ICANN Public Meetings, the GNSO Council and community had held
>> regular discussion sessions with senior staff from ICANN?s Global Domains
>> Division (GDD). This section of the Council?s Public Meeting at ICANN58 has
>> been added to allow the GNSO community to interact with GDD senior staff,
>> to discuss topics of current interest to the GNSO.
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.1 ? Introductions (Council Chairs and GDD senior staff)
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.2 ? Open discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> *Item 9: OPEN MICROPHONE & ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170308/cde12d68/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Mar  8 07:35:07 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 00:35:07 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?
In-Reply-To: <20170307185138.ebtfh66dpqo4cynz@tarvainen.info>
References: <58b5573d.8e121c0a.d5650.a6a1@mx.google.com>
 <20170307133638.GB28237@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <20170307185138.ebtfh66dpqo4cynz@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <3a2a20b9-59e0-ef26-fd59-5eee2cf03f54@mail.utoronto.ca>

teleconference is fine

SP


On 2017-03-07 13:51, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It turns out meeting with RySG will not be possible after all - we
> could not find a time that'd work. :-(
>
> We will still have the meeting with RrSG, however.
>
> RySG suggested we either do a teleconference after Copenhagen
> or schedule a meeting in Johannesburg with more time to prepare.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:36:38PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Apologies for running late with this, but looking at the discussion
>> and considering we don't have all much time and this is (hopefully)
>> beginning of a tradition, we really should be talking more with R*SGs,
>> I propose short agendas (first item is same in both):
>>
>>
>> RrSG:
>>
>> * Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
>>    how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.
>>
>> * Privacy concerns:
>> - RDS, conflicts with law, thick WHOIS
>> - PPSAI, way forward, how to accommodate GAC objections
>>
>> * DNA, Healthy Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals
>>
>>
>> RySG:
>>
>> * Tell us about yourselves, your members, your internal structure,
>>    how do you do internal governance, how do you do outreach &c.
>>
>> * The New gTLD program:
>> - how has it impacted your group, brand owners becoming registries,
>>    registries and registrars commingling &c
>> - the imposition of new rules on legacy gTLDs when contracts are
>>    renegotiated: why and how?
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/20170308/eed830c1/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Mar  8 07:48:01 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 00:48:01 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Nomination for Board seat
Message-ID: <e3622583-1915-81e4-fb30-677d48d84d14@mail.utoronto.ca>

I would like to nominate Matthew Shears for the Board seat.  Matt has 
indicated his willingness to serve, and has done great work on the CCWG 
over the past year, which will put him in an excellent position to 
convey our concerns and issues to the Board.  I believe that he may be 
able to also do the impossible....muster support from the CPH.

Stephanie Perrin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170308/efdbc71a/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Wed Mar  8 12:47:36 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:47:36 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Competition,
 Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of
 Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmh96rgwcmqU+j0Lque3mLquEyEqzbp2kLdDU0XBFWZSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmh96rgwcmqU+j0Lque3mLquEyEqzbp2kLdDU0XBFWZSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sAKu_Nx_MoLpDKsj-QwvtDZjP61buu1OAa1k0x99Zsrw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Rafik,

Will be interested in volunteering from this, but will need your support as
I get going.

Thank you

Poncelet

On 8 March 2017 at 02:26, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> another public comment to cover and this time from a review team.
> we need volunteers to take lead on drafting our comment, any idea?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ICANN News Alert <no-reply at external.icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *"no-reply at external.icann.org" <no-reply at external.icann.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:56 PM
> *To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and
> Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs
> Available for Public Comment
>
>
>
> [image: CANN][icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=pzz55emK10q6EKJvv-VkJIOYkKzBCN3UZxc_1ynBnYg&e=>
> News Alert
>
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-03-07-en[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2-2D2017-2D03-2D07-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=w9VimnXWL4VS1h9f6a7WY2T9N7ZLiPJwZSlStNeJtpU&e=>
> ------------------------------
> Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report
> of Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment
>
> 7 March 2017
>
> LOS ANGELES ? 7 March 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> and Numbers (ICANN) today announced the publication of the *Draft* Report
> from the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team
> with its recommendations for the New gTLD Program.
>
> *Executive summary[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2Dexecutive-2Dsummary-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=uNzRI4W_L6__Ww_1X4vi-AM9zO8Vtdp5M-wWrmXi2do&e=>.
> [PDF, 71 KB]*
>
> *Summary of Recommendations[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2Dsummary-2Drecommendations-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=MYhbq1bBP8sjktQvWqYTb6mV-3rArQV8lQmwUv1lPTI&e=>.
> [PDF, 1.34 MB]*
>
> *Read the report[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=ogoEvIwMmR_8NNgqWnTznhAni-wamrtfiqoZYdzxw0c&e=>.
> [PDF, 3.91 MB]*
>
> The report examines the extent to which the introduction of new generic
> top-level domains (gTLDs) has promoted competition, consumer trust and
> consumer choice in the domain name system. It also assesses the
> effectiveness of the safeguards ICANN has implemented to mitigate issues
> related to the introduction of new gTLDs. The report is available for
> public comment through 27 April 2017. Feedback will be incorporated into a
> Final Report.
>
> *Comment on the report[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2D2017-2D03-2D07-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=P5b-oodQEx4nnZvW9W_J4KLsxEYIrbgH_D8sIS35OOE&e=>.*
>
> The review team findings include the following:
>
>    - New gTLDs currently account for about 9 percent of registrations in
>    all gTLDs, which suggests that registrants are making use of a broader
>    range of gTLDs.
>    - More than half of new registrations of gTLDs have been in new gTLD
>    strings. If ccTLDs are included, registrations are divided roughly into
>    thirds among new gTLDs, legacy gTLDs and ccTLDs.
>    - ICANN contractual compliance has reported that 96 percent of
>    registries are performing the analysis that is required to determine if
>    they are being used to perpetrate security threats.
>    - At present, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that voluntary
>    public interest commitments do not negatively impact the public interest
>    prior to going into effect. Therefore, it is important for voluntary PICs
>    to be made available to the community during the public comment period of
>    the application process.
>    - Outreach programs that were put in place to facilitate and encourage
>    applications from the Global South were thought to be both poorly monitored
>    and largely ineffective.
>
> To learn more about the report findings and recommendations, *read the
> blog[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_competition-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dchoice-2Dwe-2Dve-2Dshared-2Dour-2Dthoughts-2Dplease-2Dshare-2Dyours&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Da0QI0Ko3lEjXj25r5bSAjeIk7mlF4AFe1q2sFCLEcc&e=>*
> .
>
> *More Information*
>
> The CCT Review Team will meet at ICANN58 and brief the community on its
> findings and recommendations at their consultation session on 12 March ? 9
> AM CET in Hall A3. The CCT Review Team work and detailed ICANN58 Program
> can also be followed via their dedicated wikipage[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D56135383&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Q3nRgPxq1d4vo6R3E640qlg6QizqnQbxH32MR_SRMGI&e=>
> .
> Background
>
> The Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team was
> convened in 2015 under the Affirmation of Commitments. Under ICANN's new
> Bylaws, the review is now referred to as a "Specific Review".
>
> Specific Reviews[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_reviews_specific-2Dreviews&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=CeQgSzVBxu0ambD8o-_OxNbGotcO41w5dahuHnFkX5c&e=>
> are mandated by ICANN Bylaws and are crucial to the legitimacy and
> accountability of ICANN. Specific Reviews serve as ICANN's progress report
> to the world. The reviews demonstrate how ICANN delivers on its commitments
> and identify areas where ICANN can improve. Specific Reviews are conducted
> by members of the stakeholder community who look at past processes, actions
> and outcomes in order to make recommendations to improve future performance.
> About ICANN
>
> *ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global
> Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an
> address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be
> unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate
> and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in
> 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with
> participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the
> Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and
> develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and
> facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more
> information please visit: www.icann.org[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=qeW3TbhtjJSIJTd0bWFthBephlCl7EeGrdGr_LzoNsg&e=>.*
>
>
>
> This message was sent to steve.chan at icann.org from:
>
> ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront
> Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>
> Email Marketing by [image: Contact - Try It Free!][icontact.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icontact.com_a.pl_144186&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=BUymwfBKoA-0qBI9dwlsGHlkldvVmydiNm9-Qva34Uw&e=>
>
> *Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.icontact.com_icp_mmail-2Dmprofile.pl-3Fr-3D13773709-26l-3D6333-26s-3D6C1A-26m-3D1001089-26c-3D165637&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Z0EYBNm5Ca4GLLmbpt7lUCcXr4HwT63IH6R_A2iERrM&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170308/0d7b2de1/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Mar  8 17:13:18 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:13:18 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG session on constituency day
Message-ID: <20170308151318.lkoyli4wyiqc4xyy@tarvainen.info>

Dear EC and PC members,

Agenda for NCSG session on Constituency day is unfortunately still under
construction, I've had trouble moving various pieces around, but it's
getting there. I just put the current version here for you to see and
comment:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lImD8YZGG-bJpG-UY6NxAgf5HGz8pCt2nuu2NBbd-TE/edit?usp=sharing

If I set the permissions right everybody should be able to add
comments to the doc, but feel free to comment on the list as well if
you wish.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar  8 17:21:02 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:21:02 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG session on constituency day
In-Reply-To: <20170308151318.lkoyli4wyiqc4xyy@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170308151318.lkoyli4wyiqc4xyy@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <hgSwnE8HHLxSO4Vm_w711QS_bT9bOYSdw_Ld3zP1IQn3s8WsdB4xSD93hpL6CNU5yNeLnyOCnt4sjf-v0CQnJkxgjikQ4Y7BiqC-8SEezTw=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks, Tapani.

Might we be able to spare a few minutes for one of our representatives on the CCWG-IG to brief us on what the CCWG is up to this year? I note they did not (yet) submit a WSIS proposal so am wondering if their focus or priorities have changed.

- Ayden




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG session on constituency day
Local Time: 8 March 2017 3:13 PM
UTC Time: 8 March 2017 15:13
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
To: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, NCSG EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>

Dear EC and PC members,

Agenda for NCSG session on Constituency day is unfortunately still under
construction, I've had trouble moving various pieces around, but it's
getting there. I just put the current version here for you to see and
comment:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lImD8YZGG-bJpG-UY6NxAgf5HGz8pCt2nuu2NBbd-TE/edit?usp=sharing

If I set the permissions right everybody should be able to add
comments to the doc, but feel free to comment on the list as well if
you wish.

--
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/20170308/b2fe31e0/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Mar  8 17:25:07 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 00:25:07 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG session on constituency day
In-Reply-To: <hgSwnE8HHLxSO4Vm_w711QS_bT9bOYSdw_Ld3zP1IQn3s8WsdB4xSD93hpL6CNU5yNeLnyOCnt4sjf-v0CQnJkxgjikQ4Y7BiqC-8SEezTw=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20170308151318.lkoyli4wyiqc4xyy@tarvainen.info>
 <hgSwnE8HHLxSO4Vm_w711QS_bT9bOYSdw_Ld3zP1IQn3s8WsdB4xSD93hpL6CNU5yNeLnyOCnt4sjf-v0CQnJkxgjikQ4Y7BiqC-8SEezTw=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmPMvCqivSA6iaCa6jxBLAQMSiExBxfV=za73yYMuzQJg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden.

I can respond to that quickly, a wsis workshop was submitted by the
deadline.

Best,

Rafik


On Mar 9, 2017 12:21 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

Thanks, Tapani.

Might we be able to spare a few minutes for one of our representatives on
the CCWG-IG to brief us on what the CCWG is up to this year? I note they
did not (yet) submit a WSIS proposal so am wondering if their focus or
priorities have changed.

- Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG session on constituency day
Local Time: 8 March 2017 3:13 PM
UTC Time: 8 March 2017 15:13
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
To: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, NCSG EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>

Dear EC and PC members,

Agenda for NCSG session on Constituency day is unfortunately still under
construction, I've had trouble moving various pieces around, but it's
getting there. I just put the current version here for you to see and
comment:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lImD8YZGG-bJpG-
UY6NxAgf5HGz8pCt2nuu2NBbd-TE/edit?usp=sharing

If I set the permissions right everybody should be able to add
comments to the doc, but feel free to comment on the list as well if
you wish.

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



_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170309/ab1e2199/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar  8 17:53:54 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:53:54 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG session on constituency day
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmPMvCqivSA6iaCa6jxBLAQMSiExBxfV=za73yYMuzQJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170308151318.lkoyli4wyiqc4xyy@tarvainen.info>
 <hgSwnE8HHLxSO4Vm_w711QS_bT9bOYSdw_Ld3zP1IQn3s8WsdB4xSD93hpL6CNU5yNeLnyOCnt4sjf-v0CQnJkxgjikQ4Y7BiqC-8SEezTw=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmPMvCqivSA6iaCa6jxBLAQMSiExBxfV=za73yYMuzQJg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Y6gr5BIjZzMsCJ-a1VfjNHkljSMbTu--GCNePZtsDsGlJBsfexYLNNKbA18kzqISjUBGbfuFbm0amuQCvTSpF5nK8ZHldDkpFhlSyOREAts=@ferdeline.com>

I'm glad to hear that, though I'm a little surprised because the mailing list suggests there was discussion around potential workshops back in February but nothing to indicate that anything was actually submitted to the ITU (plus someone mentioned to me off-list that an ICANN staffer told them at the MAG session last week that the CCWG-IG had not submitted a WSIS proposal by the deadline, as it had not agreed on a topic). In any case, I wasn't looking to get deep into the weeds of what workshops the group is submitting in any fora, I was more curious was to what events is it targeting, what it's priorities were for 2017, and most importantly -- how involved are we relative to other constituencies/stakeholder groups, are there opportunities for us to be doing more, and if so, what should we be doing? Thanks!



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] NCSG session on constituency day
Local Time: 8 March 2017 3:25 PM
UTC Time: 8 March 2017 15:25
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>


Hi Ayden.

I can respond to that quickly, a wsis workshop was submitted by the deadline.

Best,

Rafik






On Mar 9, 2017 12:21 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:


Thanks, Tapani.

Might we be able to spare a few minutes for one of our representatives on the CCWG-IG to brief us on what the CCWG is up to this year? I note they did not (yet) submit a WSIS proposal so am wondering if their focus or priorities have changed.

- Ayden





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG session on constituency day
Local Time: 8 March 2017 3:13 PM
UTC Time: 8 March 2017 15:13
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
To: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, NCSG EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>

Dear EC and PC members,

Agenda for NCSG session on Constituency day is unfortunately still under
construction, I've had trouble moving various pieces around, but it's
getting there. I just put the current version here for you to see and
comment:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lImD8YZGG-bJpG-UY6NxAgf5HGz8pCt2nuu2NBbd-TE/edit?usp=sharing

If I set the permissions right everybody should be able to add
comments to the doc, but feel free to comment on the list as well if
you wish.

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


_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170308/3a4a39d8/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Mar  9 04:37:17 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:37:17 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection
	Process
In-Reply-To: <CA+aOHUQVYWk=cKe8rz=mnfPnwrxLnT9moVzxHOsa5qVforHRGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aOHUTrHwFyyo8_jBW2zuv+2A9xO4ma3JMzEw29ocfR2v024A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnKP+0UcjHKJtu=dzpYRjuuPNehj1FTR9xw59rc+A6Tmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+aOHUQVYWk=cKe8rz=mnfPnwrxLnT9moVzxHOsa5qVforHRGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn5d5uLfP6jfFPmbr0vjv-qW9d5U6ePJAp23p+AAm_-Og@mail.gmail.com>

hi everyone,

I am not sure if you all got this response from Greg to our proposal but
forwarding it anyway.
any comments to his questions? I can interpret that they are fine with the
deadline we set for the nominations while we have to work for the remaining
fo the process. I think that interview of candidates before the 1st round
is ok and we can do that during Copenhagen meeting.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-02 1:42 GMT+09:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> Rafik and all,
>
> Some observations.
>
> First, I wonder if there is a better email list for this discussion, since
> this one is both under- and over-inclusive (I don't mind the
> over-inclusiveness, but some in NCPH SG/C leadership are not on this list).
>

we have the old NCPH list
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership and used for
previous elections. but I also saw a notification of yet another mailing
 list few days ago. the former may need to updated for officers from eacg SG


> Second, any approach we adopt for this cycle is "one time only," and we
> need to make a separate decision on a long-term approach.
>
> Comparing the two approaches:
>
> 1.  There are distinct differences in approach between the CPH process
> (adapted to the CSG proposal) and the NCSG proposal.  It's not as clear
> when there would be distinct differences in result.
>
> 2.  The biggest differences are: (a) participation of the NCA vs. not; (b)
> (super)majority voting of Councilors vs. need to agree (at the SG-to-SG
> level; "voices" come from Council seats vs. internal SG processes).  The
> NCSG process essentially works through the Council structure of the House,
> while CPH/CSG process essentially works through the House structure
> (without reference to Council).  For the sake of discussion, we can assume
> both are valid approaches.
>
> 3.  From these different approaches, I think the different results would
> occur when the leading candidate is not broadly acceptable.  Under the NCSG
> approach, with the NCA's participation a single vote from one SG, along
> with a unanimous vote from the other SG + the NCA is sufficient for victory
> (i.e., 5/6 of one SG could vote against a candidate, and that candidate
> would still win).  Under the CSG approach, one would need a positive
> position from both SGs (however arrived at within the SG) to select a
> director.  The NCSG approach is more likely to yield a result, but also
> capable of yielding a very divided result.  Deadlock can only result from
> (a) a "party-line" vote, (b) 1 Councilor from SG1 voting with SG2, while
> the NCA votes with SG1, or (c) a real scramble, where both SGs splinter,
> but neither mixed bloc can muster 8 votes.  The CSG approach is less likely
> to yield a result before deadlock, but less likely to yield a divided
> result (and divisions would be worked out within each SG).  In either case,
> deadlock is likely to yield a compromise candidate.
>
> Commenting on the NCSG proposal, aside from the overall difference in
> approach:
>
> 1.  We seem to be informally already in the nomination period, but I agree
> we need to have a hard date for the end of the period.  March 10 is
> probably OK, but we have to project out the remaining timeline.
>
> 2.  I think we need a better view of the candidates before any votes are
> taken.  I would suggest that interview calls take place before the first
> round, and that they be divided by SG.  A substitute (but not a great one,
> in my view) is to require written candidate statements before the first
> round.  If we do that, the candidates would be well advised to address
> their views on the key issues that occupy each SG and C (so we aren't left
> guessing on the issues most likely to drive support or lack of support).
>
> 3.  If we get to the point where NOTA beats the leader, we should have a
> timeline to resolve the issue before the director is seated in November.
> We should not contemplate leaving the seat open.  (We really would need to
> decide before the NomCom does, because the NomCom's options may change
> based on the geographic region of the NCPH Director.)  Alternatively, we
> could leave the sitting director in place until a decision is made, but
> this may create perverse incentives.
>
> 4. CSG Constituencies do not have PCs as far as I know.  CSG has an Excomm
> with 2 reps from each Constituency. At the Constituency level, IPC has
> "leadership" (officers + councilors).  Can't speak to BC and ISPCP off the
> top of my head. So the conference participants would need to be tweaked.
>
> At the risk of stating the obvious, we need to quickly resolve which of
> the two approaches to adopt.  Once we do that, the remaining issues are
> relatively minor.
>
> I have tried not to make a case for either approach in this email, but
> only to point out differences. However, I think we need some people to make
> a case for one approach or the other, and quickly, so that the powers of
> discussion and persuasion can work their magic and we can come to a
> agreement.
>
> So, I leave you at the end of this lengthy email with a question, *why is
> one proposal better than the other?*
>
> Greg
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> After discussion within NCSG,  I would like to share our response:
>> - we cannot accept the current proposal.
>> - however, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>> parallel starting from Wednesday 1st March until Friday 10th March.
>>
>> Our proposal is:
>>   * NCA is not removed from any part of the process
>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>   * as many nominees as coming forward in a week.
>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two
>>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>> house.
>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>> against NOTA
>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>> our act together.
>>   * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>> get our act together.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-02-20 14:12 GMT+09:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish working on the Board
>>> Seat selection process, and a small group to do it, but I'll start here,
>>> since I think this is the only active mailing list with both sides of the
>>> NCPH on it.
>>>
>>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've already started
>>> the process without knowing what it is exactly, since we have now received
>>> nominations.
>>>
>>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures previously
>>> circulated, I'm also attaching the following for consideration:
>>>
>>> 1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and NCSG
>>> representatives outlining a potential draft process.
>>> 2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a revised draft
>>> timeline and some relevant excerpts from Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>> 3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section 11.3(f), which
>>> covers the selection process for Seats 13-14 (to the extent that is covered
>>> in the Bylaws), and Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>> 11.3(f).
>>>
>>> A few thoughts and comments:
>>>
>>> A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go through a process
>>> that is contemplated to take 21 weeks (just to go through).  Talk about
>>> building the airplane in the air.
>>>
>>> B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible adjustments to the
>>> timeline, but did not come to any decisions.  It's not clear to me whether
>>> Staff is preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>
>>> C.  If any of our groups have not already done so, we should put out a
>>> call for any other nominations ASAP (though it would be nice to know the
>>> end of the nomination period).
>>>
>>> D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process and the NCPH
>>> bullet-points are significantly different when it comes to voting.
>>>
>>> E.  We should figure out how to get this process agreed as quickly as
>>> possible.  Given the unusual circumstances, we don't need to use this
>>> process as precedent for any future process.  We just need to get through
>>> this selection.  One approach is for NCSG to respond to the draft sent at
>>> the end of the Intersessional.  However, given the gap between that and the
>>> bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a call/Adobe Connect
>>> session ASAP to move the ball forward.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> P.S.  It's not all that important how we got here, but nonetheless, it
>>> should be noted that the GNSO Procedures were never updated from 2012, when
>>> the Bylaws deadline for naming the Director was changed from one month to
>>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being seated.  (The GNSO
>>> Procedures will need to be updated in any event, since the Bylaws
>>> references are now obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this error.
>>>
>>> B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>>> S: gsshatan
>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428>
>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process
>>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>
>>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed interim Board
>>> Selection Process based closely on the Final Process adopted by the
>>> Contracted Parties House.  Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>> changes from the CPH document.
>>>
>>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any suggested changes can
>>> be added in "suggest" mode (but everyone has "edit" rights):
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPp
>>> nL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board Seat process and
>>> then revisit afterward before making it a permanent rather than "interim"
>>> process.
>>>
>>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, BC and ISPCP,
>>> but we wanted to start the discussion on this basis, given the short amount
>>> of time we have for this year.
>>>
>>> We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams)
>>>
>>>
>>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>>> S: gsshatan
>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428>
>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170309/616f8a3f/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Mar  9 04:38:58 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:38:58 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Competition,
 Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of
 Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40sAKu_Nx_MoLpDKsj-QwvtDZjP61buu1OAa1k0x99Zsrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmh96rgwcmqU+j0Lque3mLquEyEqzbp2kLdDU0XBFWZSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEux40sAKu_Nx_MoLpDKsj-QwvtDZjP61buu1OAa1k0x99Zsrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmYvUtS6LkM3zt5OLcUhjtT29ZWae2o6AzsQcOaUSjNfw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Poncelet for volunteering. maybe we can ask Carlos for help here
since he is in the CCT.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-08 19:47 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>:

> Thanks Rafik,
>
> Will be interested in volunteering from this, but will need your support
> as I get going.
>
> Thank you
>
> Poncelet
>
> On 8 March 2017 at 02:26, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> another public comment to cover and this time from a review team.
>> we need volunteers to take lead on drafting our comment, any idea?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *ICANN News Alert <no-reply at external.icann.org>
>> *Reply-To: *"no-reply at external.icann.org" <no-reply at external.icann.org>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:56 PM
>> *To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and
>> Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs
>> Available for Public Comment
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: CANN][icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=pzz55emK10q6EKJvv-VkJIOYkKzBCN3UZxc_1ynBnYg&e=>
>> News Alert
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-03-07-en[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2-2D2017-2D03-2D07-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=w9VimnXWL4VS1h9f6a7WY2T9N7ZLiPJwZSlStNeJtpU&e=>
>> ------------------------------
>> Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report
>> of Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment
>>
>> 7 March 2017
>>
>> LOS ANGELES ? 7 March 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
>> and Numbers (ICANN) today announced the publication of the *Draft*
>> Report from the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT)
>> Review Team with its recommendations for the New gTLD Program.
>>
>> *Executive summary[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2Dexecutive-2Dsummary-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=uNzRI4W_L6__Ww_1X4vi-AM9zO8Vtdp5M-wWrmXi2do&e=>.
>> [PDF, 71 KB]*
>>
>> *Summary of Recommendations[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2Dsummary-2Drecommendations-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=MYhbq1bBP8sjktQvWqYTb6mV-3rArQV8lQmwUv1lPTI&e=>.
>> [PDF, 1.34 MB]*
>>
>> *Read the report[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=ogoEvIwMmR_8NNgqWnTznhAni-wamrtfiqoZYdzxw0c&e=>.
>> [PDF, 3.91 MB]*
>>
>> The report examines the extent to which the introduction of new generic
>> top-level domains (gTLDs) has promoted competition, consumer trust and
>> consumer choice in the domain name system. It also assesses the
>> effectiveness of the safeguards ICANN has implemented to mitigate issues
>> related to the introduction of new gTLDs. The report is available for
>> public comment through 27 April 2017. Feedback will be incorporated into a
>> Final Report.
>>
>> *Comment on the report[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2D2017-2D03-2D07-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=P5b-oodQEx4nnZvW9W_J4KLsxEYIrbgH_D8sIS35OOE&e=>.*
>>
>> The review team findings include the following:
>>
>>    - New gTLDs currently account for about 9 percent of registrations in
>>    all gTLDs, which suggests that registrants are making use of a broader
>>    range of gTLDs.
>>    - More than half of new registrations of gTLDs have been in new gTLD
>>    strings. If ccTLDs are included, registrations are divided roughly into
>>    thirds among new gTLDs, legacy gTLDs and ccTLDs.
>>    - ICANN contractual compliance has reported that 96 percent of
>>    registries are performing the analysis that is required to determine if
>>    they are being used to perpetrate security threats.
>>    - At present, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that voluntary
>>    public interest commitments do not negatively impact the public interest
>>    prior to going into effect. Therefore, it is important for voluntary PICs
>>    to be made available to the community during the public comment period of
>>    the application process.
>>    - Outreach programs that were put in place to facilitate and
>>    encourage applications from the Global South were thought to be both poorly
>>    monitored and largely ineffective.
>>
>> To learn more about the report findings and recommendations, *read the
>> blog[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_competition-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dchoice-2Dwe-2Dve-2Dshared-2Dour-2Dthoughts-2Dplease-2Dshare-2Dyours&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Da0QI0Ko3lEjXj25r5bSAjeIk7mlF4AFe1q2sFCLEcc&e=>*
>> .
>>
>> *More Information*
>>
>> The CCT Review Team will meet at ICANN58 and brief the community on its
>> findings and recommendations at their consultation session on 12 March ? 9
>> AM CET in Hall A3. The CCT Review Team work and detailed ICANN58 Program
>> can also be followed via their dedicated wikipage[community.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D56135383&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Q3nRgPxq1d4vo6R3E640qlg6QizqnQbxH32MR_SRMGI&e=>
>> .
>> Background
>>
>> The Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team was
>> convened in 2015 under the Affirmation of Commitments. Under ICANN's new
>> Bylaws, the review is now referred to as a "Specific Review".
>>
>> Specific Reviews[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_reviews_specific-2Dreviews&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=CeQgSzVBxu0ambD8o-_OxNbGotcO41w5dahuHnFkX5c&e=>
>> are mandated by ICANN Bylaws and are crucial to the legitimacy and
>> accountability of ICANN. Specific Reviews serve as ICANN's progress report
>> to the world. The reviews demonstrate how ICANN delivers on its commitments
>> and identify areas where ICANN can improve. Specific Reviews are conducted
>> by members of the stakeholder community who look at past processes, actions
>> and outcomes in order to make recommendations to improve future performance.
>> About ICANN
>>
>> *ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global
>> Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an
>> address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be
>> unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate
>> and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in
>> 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with
>> participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the
>> Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and
>> develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and
>> facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more
>> information please visit: www.icann.org[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=qeW3TbhtjJSIJTd0bWFthBephlCl7EeGrdGr_LzoNsg&e=>.*
>>
>>
>>
>> This message was sent to steve.chan at icann.org from:
>>
>> ICANN News Alert | no-reply at external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025
>> Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>>
>> Email Marketing by [image: Contact - Try It Free!][icontact.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icontact.com_a.pl_144186&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=BUymwfBKoA-0qBI9dwlsGHlkldvVmydiNm9-Qva34Uw&e=>
>>
>> *Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]*
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.icontact.com_icp_mmail-2Dmprofile.pl-3Fr-3D13773709-26l-3D6333-26s-3D6C1A-26m-3D1001089-26c-3D165637&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=-miDaa8l5emgAo2ZavLkQZV8X4Ij2mjfeMC0IvKyUM8&s=Z0EYBNm5Ca4GLLmbpt7lUCcXr4HwT63IH6R_A2iERrM&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170309/04f2b64f/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Mar  9 04:43:04 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:43:04 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <8dc44718-14f3-cf8b-9143-9d6533198954@apc.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <NUJ1GQwUYd7aAmg2U1kvlixEmdKglSW9tk2yZrtmDMw4xOvuenx72gfpdQgHyZyWf8Ne9ODsMbi-H6xbN8h4wqFxD8Vx95X9SrFyDj0Lg0Q=@ferdeline.com>
 <8dc44718-14f3-cf8b-9143-9d6533198954@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk=YQWBrUJFZwFoptvTRocQOYiCOqP8RHjtwitEOA9HQw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

thanks for the comments
2017-03-08 2:24 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org>:

>
> Another question, what formula re we using.  Has NCPH come to
> agreement?  Have we agreed to as many nominiees as come forward?
>
>
I don't think there was any indication about CSG position on that. I assume
we will go with many nominees.


> If so should we be nominating on the NCPH list as opposed to by SG?
>
>
I think we should agree in PC first then nominate on NCPH list (and back to
Greg point we are piggybacking the intersessional list )

Who is the point person for NCSG in this dog's beakfast?
>
> I guess you mean the interface with CSG here ? I guess  I volunteered for
that :)

Best,

Rafik

>
> On 07-Mar-17 11:03, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> > Do we have any ideas around who the CSG will be nominating? I have
> > heard one name mumbled, but if anyone has heard something more
> > concrete, I would be curious to hear what you have learned... Thanks.
> >
> > - Ayden
> >
> >>  -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
> >> Local Time: 7 March 2017 10:52 AM
> >> UTC Time: 7 March 2017 10:52
> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the
> >> board seat election by this Friday.
> >>
> >> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here:
> >> nominating and documenting the process.
> >>
> >> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
> >> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination
> >> by PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
> >> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
> >> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
> >> proactive.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Hi Ed,
> >>
> >>     Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and
> >>     act quickly on it.
> >>     I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC,
> >>     but looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to
> >>     get nominees.
> >>
> >>     Best,
> >>
> >>     Rafik
> >>
> >>     2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> >>     <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
> >>
> >>         Thanks Rafik.
> >>
> >>         One question; Are nominations within our group to be self
> >>         nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the
> >>         general membership or just members of the PC?
> >>
> >>         I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't
> >>         been involved in the Board selection process before and would
> >>         just like to fully understand the process.
> >>
> >>         Kind Regards,
> >>
> >>         Ed
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>         ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> >>
> >>         *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>         <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> >>         *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
> >>         *To*: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org
> >>         <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> >>         *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> >>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
> >>         *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board
> >>         Seat Selection Process
> >>
> >>         Hi everyone,
> >>
> >>         since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG
> >>         and also our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st
> >>         March to 10th March .
> >>
> >>         Best,
> >>
> >>         Rafik
> >>
> >>         2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
> >>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> >>
> >>             Hi Avri,
> >>
> >>             thanks for the suggestion,
> >>
> >>             so we have now:
> >>             - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> >>             - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG
> >>             in parallel starting (Wednesday?)
> >>
> >>             Our counter-proposal is:
> >>
> >>               * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >>               * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
> >>             succeed.
> >>               * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >>               * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
> >>             round between top two
> >>              * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round
> >>             with the whole house.
> >>               * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round
> >>             of leader
> >>                 against NOTA
> >>               * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat
> >>             open until we get
> >>                 our act together.
> >>               *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA
> >>             talk until we
> >>                 get our act together.
> >>
> >>             we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and
> >>             document that.
> >>             can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and
> >>             respond ot CSG?
> >>
> >>             Best,
> >>
> >>             Rafik
> >>             2017-02-24
> >>              21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org
> >>             <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>                 some minor typo corrections
> >>
> >>                 Our counter-proposal is:
> >>
> >>                   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >>                   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8
> >>                 to succeed.
> >>                   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >>                   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
> >>                 round between top two
> >>
> >>                   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd
> >>                 round of leader
> >>                     against NOTA
> >>                   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
> >>                 seat open until we get
> >>                     our act together.
> >>                   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
> >>                 NCA  talk until we
> >>                     get our act together.
> >>
> >>                 On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>                 > Hi,
> >>                 >
> >>                 > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
> >>                 >
> >>                 > I guess we say:
> >>                 > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> >>                 > - However, we can start the nomination process, for
> >>                 NCSG and CSG in
> >>                 > parallel starting next week Monday
> >>                 > - Our counter-proposal is:
> >>                 >
> >>                 >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >>                 >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines -
> >>                 8 to succeed.
> >>                 >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >>                 >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second
> >>                 round between top two
> >>                 >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd
> >>                 round of leader against
> >>                 >     NOTA
> >>                 >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
> >>                 seat open until we
> >>                 >     get our act together.
> >>                 >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
> >>                 NCA  talk until we
> >>                 >     get our act together.
> >>                 >
> >>                 > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share
> >>                 our response with CSG.
> >>                 >
> >>                 > Best,
> >>                 >
> >>                 > Rafik
> >>                 >
> >>                 > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org
> >>                 <mailto:avri at apc.org> <mailto:avri at apc.org
> >>                 <mailto:avri at apc.org>>>:
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     Hi,
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     I think we could respond that we do not accept
> >>                 their proposal
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the
> >>                 process
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     - we insist that there be a vote along the
> >>                 previous lines - 8 to
> >>                 >     succeed.
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second
> >>                 round between top two
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd
> >>                 round of leader
> >>                 >     against NOTA
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave
> >>                 seat open until we get our
> >>                 >     act together.
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members
> >>                 and NCA  talk until
> >>                 >     we get
> >>                 >     our act together.
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     avri
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
> >>                 >     >
> >>                 >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and
> >>                 say we are considering/or
> >>                 >     > not their doc and will be proposing something
> >>                 or an alternative
> >>                 >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us
> >>                 - maybe end of next
> >>                 >     week?
> >>                 >     >
> >>                 >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination
> >>                 period - say next
> >>                 >     week?  or
> >>                 >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be
> >>                 useful to have the
> >>                 >     CSG and
> >>                 >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.
> >>                 Agree with CSG whether
> >>                 >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
> >>                 >     >
> >>                 >     > In the interim start work on the process?
> >>                 >     >
> >>                 >     > Matthew
> >>                 >     >
> >>                 >     >
> >>                 >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>                 >     >> Hi all,
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >> we really need to develop our response or
> >>                 proposal to CSG
> >>                 >     quickly. at
> >>                 >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >> Best,
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >> Rafik
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
> >>                 <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >>                 >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> >>                 >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>:
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>     Hi Matt,
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for
> >>                 other comments on this
> >>                 >     topic.
> >>                 >     >>     I think we can start with nomination
> >>                 whole we work on the
> >>                 >     process
> >>                 >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
> >>                 >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we
> >>                 have 2 candidates for
> >>                 >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find
> >>                 other candidates? we
> >>                 >     >>     don't have so much time for a long
> >>                 nomination period.
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>     I understand that we are having the
> >>                 deadline as a mean to press
> >>                 >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear
> >>                 about the aspects which are
> >>                 >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>     Best,
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>     Rafik
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew
> >>                 shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> >>                 >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> >>                 >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
> >>                 <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
> >>                 <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>>:
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>         Thanks Rafik
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that
> >>                 we need to deal
> >>                 >     with it
> >>                 >     >>         and we are running out of time.
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg
> >>                 before the meeting,
> >>                 >     which
> >>                 >     >>         was not really discussed further.
> >>                 Then we had some general
> >>                 >     >>         discussion about the need to do
> >>                 something on the Board
> >>                 >     >>         selection process.  People voiced
> >>                 their views on different
> >>                 >     >>         aspects of the process and there was
> >>                 concern over the
> >>                 >     >>         timeline, but we did not really
> >>                 decide anything (others
> >>                 >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed
> >>                 some important
> >>                 >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he
> >>                 wanted to continue in the
> >>                 >     >>         role; I announced I was going to
> >>                 run.  Then the CSG
> >>                 >     proposal
> >>                 >     >>         for a process was circulated on
> >>                 Thurs AM.  There seemed
> >>                 >     to be
> >>                 >     >>         general agreement that the CSG
> >>                 proposal was not ideal.
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is
> >>                 us agreeing a
> >>                 >     process and
> >>                 >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting
> >>                 that announced, so at
> >>                 >     >>         least the initial stages of the
> >>                 process are underway.
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>         Matthew
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak
> wrote:
> >>                 >     >>>         Hi everyone,
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to
> >>                 resume the discussion on
> >>                 >     board
> >>                 >     >>>         seat election.
> >>                 >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get
> >>                 a summary of what
> >>                 >     or not
> >>                 >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard
> >>                 from those who attended
> >>                 >     >>>         intersessional?
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>         We also need to outline what are
> >>                 our non-negotiable points
> >>                 >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA
> >>                 participation and so on.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from
> >>                 last week is far
> >>                 >     from our
> >>                 >     >>>         expectations.
> >>                 >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a
> >>                 call. We can have it
> >>                 >     by end
> >>                 >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be
> >>                 ready.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>         Best,
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>         Rafik
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message
> ----------
> >>                 >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan"
> >>                 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.
> com>
> >>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>                 >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
> >>                 >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
> >>                 >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017]
> >>                 Board Seat
> >>                 >     Selection Process
> >>                 >     >>>         To:
> >>                 <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>>
> >>                 >     >>>         Cc:
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             All,
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             We probably need a different
> >>                 mailing list to finish
> >>                 >     >>>             working on the Board Seat
> >>                 selection process, and a
> >>                 >     small
> >>                 >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start
> >>                 here, since I think
> >>                 >     this
> >>                 >     >>>             is the only active mailing list
> >>                 with both sides of the
> >>                 >     >>>             NCPH on it.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             We basically have no time to
> >>                 work this out, and we've
> >>                 >     >>>             already started the process
> >>                 without knowing what it is
> >>                 >     >>>             exactly, since we have now
> >>                 received nominations.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation
> >>                 of the CPH procedures
> >>                 >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also
> >>                 attaching the
> >>                 >     following
> >>                 >     >>>             for consideration:
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an
> >>                 exchange between
> >>                 >     CSG and
> >>                 >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining
> >>                 a potential draft
> >>                 >     process.
> >>                 >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the
> >>                 ICANN Staff Memo with a
> >>                 >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some
> >>                 relevant excerpts from
> >>                 >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
> >>                 >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the
> >>                 Bylaws, with Section
> >>                 >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the
> >>                 selection process for Seats
> >>                 >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is
> >>                 covered in the
> >>                 >     Bylaws), and
> >>                 >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is
> >>                 referred to in Section
> >>                 >     11.3(f).
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks
> >>                 to both develop and go
> >>                 >     >>>             through a process that is
> >>                 contemplated to take 21
> >>                 >     weeks
> >>                 >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk
> >>                 about building the
> >>                 >     airplane
> >>                 >     >>>             in the air.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we
> >>                 discussed possible
> >>                 >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline,
> >>                 but did not come to any
> >>                 >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to
> >>                 me whether Staff is
> >>                 >     >>>             preparing a further revised
> >>                 draft.  I'll ask.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have
> >>                 not already done so, we
> >>                 >     >>>             should put out a call for any
> >>                 other nominations ASAP
> >>                 >     >>>             (though it would be nice to
> >>                 know the end of the
> >>                 >     >>>             nomination period).
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             D.  Without making any
> >>                 judgments, the CPH process and
> >>                 >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are
> >>                 significantly different
> >>                 >     when
> >>                 >     >>>             it comes to voting.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to
> >>                 get this process
> >>                 >     agreed
> >>                 >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given
> >>                 the unusual
> >>                 >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to
> >>                 use this process as
> >>                 >     >>>             precedent for any future
> >>                 process.  We just need to get
> >>                 >     >>>             through this selection.  One
> >>                 approach is for NCSG to
> >>                 >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at
> >>                 the end of the
> >>                 >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given
> >>                 the gap between
> >>                 >     that and
> >>                 >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might
> >>                 just be better to
> >>                 >     arrange a
> >>                 >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP
> >>                 to move the ball
> >>                 >     forward.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             Greg
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that
> >>                 important how we got here, but
> >>                 >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted
> >>                 that the GNSO
> >>                 >     Procedures
> >>                 >     >>>             were never updated from 2012,
> >>                 when the Bylaws deadline
> >>                 >     >>>             for naming the Director was
> >>                 changed from one month to
> >>                 >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then
> >>                 six months prior to
> >>                 >     being
> >>                 >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures
> >>                 will need to be
> >>                 >     updated in
> >>                 >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws
> >>                 references are now
> >>                 >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft
> >>                 bullet-points repeated this
> >>                 >     error.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this
> >>                 with very little time
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
> >>                 >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
> >>                 >     >>>             S: gsshatan
> >>                 >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> >>                 >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message
> >>                 ----------
> >>                 >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan*
> >>                 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.
> com>
> >>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>                 >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
> >>                 >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
> >>                 >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of
> >>                 Interim Board
> >>                 >     Selection Process
> >>                 >     >>>             To:
> >>                 ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>                 >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional
> >>                 Participants,
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion
> >>                 draft" of a proposed
> >>                 >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process
> >>                 based closely on the
> >>                 >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the
> >>                 Contracted Parties House.
> >>                 >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are
> >>                 attached, showing changes
> >>                 >     >>>             from the CPH document.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be
> >>                 found here, where any
> >>                 >     >>>             suggested changes can be added
> >>                 in "suggest" mode (but
> >>                 >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
> >>                 >     >>>             rights):
> >>                 >
> >>                  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
> >>                 >
> >>                  <https://docs.google.com/
> document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >
> >>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
> >>                 >
> >>                  <https://docs.google.com/
> document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_
> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             We would hope to use this for
> >>                 the current 2017 Board
> >>                 >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit
> >>                 afterward before
> >>                 >     making it
> >>                 >     >>>             a permanent rather than
> >>                 "interim" process.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by
> >>                 the membership of
> >>                 >     the IPC,
> >>                 >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to
> >>                 start the discussion on
> >>                 >     >>>             this basis, given the short
> >>                 amount of time we have for
> >>                 >     >>>             this year.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             Thanks!
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP
> >>                 Intersessional Teams)
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
> >>                 >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
> >>                 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
> >>                 >     >>>             S: gsshatan
> >>                 >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> >>                 >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
> >>                 >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>                 >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>                 <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                  _______________________________________________
> >>                 >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing
> >>                 list
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                  Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>                 >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                  <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>                 >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>                 <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >
> >>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017
> >>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017>
> >>                 >
> >>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017
> >>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017
> >>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017>
> >>                 >
> >>                  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017
> >>                 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-
> intersessional2017>>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                  _______________________________________________
> >>                 >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>                 >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
> >>                 >     <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>                 <mailto: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>
> >>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >>                 >     >>>
> >>                  <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> >>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>>
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >>         --
> >>                 >     >>         ------------
> >>                 >     >>         Matthew Shears
> >>                 >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >>                 >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >>                 >     >>         + 44 771 2472987
> >>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >>                 >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
> >>                 >     >>
> >>                 >     >> ______________________________
> _________________
> >>                 >     >> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>                 >     >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>                 <mailto: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>
> >>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >>                 >     > --
> >>                 >     > ------------
> >>                 >     > Matthew Shears
> >>                 >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >>                 >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >>                 >     > + 44 771 2472987
> >>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >>                 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >>                 >     >
> >>                 >     > _______________________________________________
> >>                 >     > NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>                 >     > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>                 <mailto: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>
> >>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >>                 >
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     ---
> >>                 >     This email has been checked for viruses by
> >>                 Avast antivirus software.
> >>                 >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> >>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>>
> >>                 >
> >>                 >     _______________________________________________
> >>                 >     NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>                 >     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>                 <mailto: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>
> >>                 >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >>                 >
> >>                 >
> >>
> >>
> >>                 ---
> >>                 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
> >>                 antivirus software.
> >>                 https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>                 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170309/7e8606a0/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Mar 10 09:43:29 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:43:29 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=BmwfdkZnCALWBoOY+uP9YiqFQrAZwOuiht301hswHBg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All,

the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2
names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.
if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most of
you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00 local
Time.
we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to
suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal we
have.

Best,

Rafik


2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
> seat election by this Friday.
>
> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
> and documenting the process.
>
> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
> members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
> proactive.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act
> quickly on it.
> I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
> to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>
>> Thanks Rafik.
>>
>> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
>> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
>> members of the PC?
>>
>> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
>> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
>> understand the process.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>> Selection Process
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also
>> our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>>
>>> so we have now:
>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>>
>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>
>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>> two
>>>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>>> house.
>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>     against NOTA
>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>     our act together.
>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>     get our act together.
>>>
>>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> 2017-02-24
>>>  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>>
>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>
>>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>> two
>>>
>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>     against NOTA
>>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>     our act together.
>>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>     get our act together.
>>>>
>>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>>> >
>>>> > I guess we say:
>>>> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>>> > parallel starting next week Monday
>>>> > - Our counter-proposal is:
>>>> >
>>>> >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>> >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>> >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>> >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>> >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>>>> >     NOTA
>>>> >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>>> >     get our act together.
>>>> >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>> >     get our act together.
>>>> >
>>>> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>>> CSG.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> >
>>>> > Rafik
>>>> >
>>>> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>>> >
>>>> >     Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> >     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>>> >
>>>> >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>> >
>>>> >     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>>> >     succeed.
>>>> >
>>>> >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>> >
>>>> >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>> >
>>>> >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>> >     against NOTA
>>>> >
>>>> >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we
>>>> get our
>>>> >     act together.
>>>> >
>>>> >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>>> >     we get
>>>> >     our act together.
>>>> >
>>>> >     avri
>>>> >
>>>> >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>>> considering/or
>>>> >     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>>> >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>>>> >     week?
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>>> >     week?  or
>>>> >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>>> >     CSG and
>>>> >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>>>> >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > Matthew
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> >     >> Hi all,
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>>> >     quickly. at
>>>> >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> Best,
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> Rafik
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <
>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> >>>:
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     Hi Matt,
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>>>> >     topic.
>>>> >     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>>> >     process
>>>> >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>>> >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>>>> for
>>>> >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
>>>> we
>>>> >     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>>> press
>>>> >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects
>>>> which are
>>>> >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     Best,
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     Rafik
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>>> >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>> >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>>> >     with it
>>>> >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>>>> >     which
>>>> >     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>>> general
>>>> >     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>>> >     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>>> different
>>>> >     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>>> >     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>>> >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>>> >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>>> the
>>>> >     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>>> >     proposal
>>>> >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>>> >     to be
>>>> >     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>>> >     process and
>>>> >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced,
>>>> so at
>>>> >     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         Matthew
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>>>> >     board
>>>> >     >>>         seat election.
>>>> >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>>> >     or not
>>>> >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>>> attended
>>>> >     >>>         intersessional?
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>>> points
>>>> >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>>> >     from our
>>>> >     >>>         expectations.
>>>> >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>>> >     by end
>>>> >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         Best,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         Rafik
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>> >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>>> >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>> >     Selection Process
>>>> >     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>> >     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>>> >     >>>         Cc:
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             All,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to
>>>> finish
>>>> >     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>>>> >     small
>>>> >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>>>> >     this
>>>> >     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides
>>>> of the
>>>> >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>>> we've
>>>> >     >>>             already started the process without knowing what
>>>> it is
>>>> >     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH
>>>> procedures
>>>> >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>>> >     following
>>>> >     >>>             for consideration:
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>>> >     CSG and
>>>> >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>>> >     process.
>>>> >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>>> with a
>>>> >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>>>> from
>>>> >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>>> >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with
>>>> Section
>>>> >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>>> Seats
>>>> >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>>> >     Bylaws), and
>>>> >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>>> >     11.3(f).
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
>>>> go
>>>> >     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>>> >     weeks
>>>> >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>>> >     airplane
>>>> >     >>>             in the air.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>>> >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>>> any
>>>> >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>>> >     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done
>>>> so, we
>>>> >     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations
>>>> ASAP
>>>> >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>>> >     >>>             nomination period).
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>>>> and
>>>> >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>>>> >     when
>>>> >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>>> >     agreed
>>>> >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>>> >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process
>>>> as
>>>> >     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need
>>>> to get
>>>> >     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
>>>> to
>>>> >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>>> >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>>> >     that and
>>>> >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>>> >     arrange a
>>>> >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>>> >     forward.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             Greg
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
>>>> here, but
>>>> >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>>> >     Procedures
>>>> >     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>>> deadline
>>>> >     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one
>>>> month to
>>>> >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>>> >     being
>>>> >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>>> >     updated in
>>>> >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>>> >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>>>> >     error.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>> >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>>> >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>>> >     Selection Process
>>>> >     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a
>>>> proposed
>>>> >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>>> the
>>>> >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>>> House.
>>>> >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>>> changes
>>>> >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>>> >     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>>> (but
>>>> >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>>>> >     >>>             rights):
>>>> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>>> Board
>>>> >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>>> >     making it
>>>> >     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>>> >     the IPC,
>>>> >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>>> discussion on
>>>> >     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we
>>>> have for
>>>> >     >>>             this year.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             Thanks!
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>>> Teams)
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>> >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>             _______________________________________________
>>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>> >     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>>> >     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>
>>>> >     >>>         _______________________________________________
>>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> >     <mailto: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>
>>>> >     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>> >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >>         --
>>>> >     >>         ------------
>>>> >     >>         Matthew Shears
>>>> >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> >     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>> >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>> >     >>
>>>> >     >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >     >> 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>
>>>> >     > --
>>>> >     > ------------
>>>> >     > Matthew Shears
>>>> >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> >     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>> >     >
>>>> >     > _______________________________________________
>>>> >     > 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>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >     ---
>>>> >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>> software.
>>>> >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>> >
>>>> >     _______________________________________________
>>>> >     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>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170310/9ad0d16a/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Mar 10 13:11:43 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:11:43 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=BmwfdkZnCALWBoOY+uP9YiqFQrAZwOuiht301hswHBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=BmwfdkZnCALWBoOY+uP9YiqFQrAZwOuiht301hswHBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20170310111143.3htionuwe6wtlnp4@roller.tarvainen.info>

Hi Rafik, all,

I've spoken with CSG Chairs and they want to move the nomination
deadline at least until they've had their face-to-face meetings,
and I think we could use some extra time, too.

So there's no reason to rush. I tentatively suggested Tuesday
night, which would give us time to debate it in our Constituency
day session.

We should also discuss whether we should submit multiple
candidates or decide amongst ourselves first on one
candidate to nominate.

Tapani

On Mar 10 16:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2
> names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.
> if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most of
> you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00 local
> Time.
> we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to
> suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal we
> have.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
> > seat election by this Friday.
> >
> > We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
> > and documenting the process.
> >
> > I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
> > self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
> > members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
> > Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
> > It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
> > proactive.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act
> > quickly on it.
> > I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
> > to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
> >
> >> Thanks Rafik.
> >>
> >> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
> >> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
> >> members of the PC?
> >>
> >> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
> >> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
> >> understand the process.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
> >> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
> >> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> >> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
> >> Selection Process
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also
> >> our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Avri,
> >>>
> >>> thanks for the suggestion,
> >>>
> >>> so we have now:
> >>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> >>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
> >>> starting (Wednesday?)
> >>>
> >>> Our counter-proposal is:
> >>>
> >>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
> >>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
> >>> two
> >>>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
> >>> house.
> >>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
> >>>     against NOTA
> >>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
> >>>     our act together.
> >>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
> >>>     get our act together.
> >>>
> >>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
> >>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Rafik
> >>> 2017-02-24
> >>>  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> some minor typo corrections
> >>>>
> >>>> Our counter-proposal is:
> >>>>
> >>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
> >>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
> >>>> two
> >>>
> >>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
> >>>>     against NOTA
> >>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
> >>>>     our act together.
> >>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
> >>>>     get our act together.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>>> > Hi,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I guess we say:
> >>>> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> >>>> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
> >>>> > parallel starting next week Monday
> >>>> > - Our counter-proposal is:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >>>> >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
> >>>> >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >>>> >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
> >>>> >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
> >>>> >     NOTA
> >>>> >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
> >>>> >     get our act together.
> >>>> >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
> >>>> >     get our act together.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
> >>>> CSG.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Best,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Rafik
> >>>> >
> >>>> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
> >>>> avri at apc.org>>:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     Hi,
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
> >>>> >     succeed.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
> >>>> >     against NOTA
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we
> >>>> get our
> >>>> >     act together.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
> >>>> >     we get
> >>>> >     our act together.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     avri
> >>>> >
> >>>> >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
> >>>> >     >
> >>>> >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
> >>>> considering/or
> >>>> >     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
> >>>> >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
> >>>> >     week?
> >>>> >     >
> >>>> >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
> >>>> >     week?  or
> >>>> >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
> >>>> >     CSG and
> >>>> >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
> >>>> >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
> >>>> >     >
> >>>> >     > In the interim start work on the process?
> >>>> >     >
> >>>> >     > Matthew
> >>>> >     >
> >>>> >     >
> >>>> >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>>> >     >> Hi all,
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
> >>>> >     quickly. at
> >>>> >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >> Best,
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >> Rafik
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <
> >>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>> >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >>>> >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>> >>>:
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>     Hi Matt,
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
> >>>> >     topic.
> >>>> >     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
> >>>> >     process
> >>>> >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
> >>>> >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
> >>>> for
> >>>> >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
> >>>> we
> >>>> >     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
> >>>> press
> >>>> >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects
> >>>> which are
> >>>> >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>     Best,
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>     Rafik
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
> >>>> >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> >>>> >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>         Thanks Rafik
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
> >>>> >     with it
> >>>> >     >>         and we are running out of time.
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
> >>>> >     which
> >>>> >     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
> >>>> general
> >>>> >     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
> >>>> >     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
> >>>> different
> >>>> >     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
> >>>> >     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
> >>>> >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
> >>>> >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
> >>>> the
> >>>> >     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
> >>>> >     proposal
> >>>> >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
> >>>> >     to be
> >>>> >     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
> >>>> >     process and
> >>>> >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced,
> >>>> so at
> >>>> >     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>         Matthew
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>>> >     >>>         Hi everyone,
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
> >>>> >     board
> >>>> >     >>>         seat election.
> >>>> >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
> >>>> >     or not
> >>>> >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
> >>>> attended
> >>>> >     >>>         intersessional?
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
> >>>> points
> >>>> >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
> >>>> >     from our
> >>>> >     >>>         expectations.
> >>>> >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
> >>>> >     by end
> >>>> >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>         Best,
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>         Rafik
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>> >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>>> >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
> >>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >>>> >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
> >>>> >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
> >>>> >     Selection Process
> >>>> >     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>>> >     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
> >>>> >     >>>         Cc:
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             All,
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to
> >>>> finish
> >>>> >     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
> >>>> >     small
> >>>> >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
> >>>> >     this
> >>>> >     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides
> >>>> of the
> >>>> >     >>>             NCPH on it.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
> >>>> we've
> >>>> >     >>>             already started the process without knowing what
> >>>> it is
> >>>> >     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH
> >>>> procedures
> >>>> >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
> >>>> >     following
> >>>> >     >>>             for consideration:
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
> >>>> >     CSG and
> >>>> >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
> >>>> >     process.
> >>>> >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
> >>>> with a
> >>>> >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
> >>>> from
> >>>> >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
> >>>> >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with
> >>>> Section
> >>>> >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
> >>>> Seats
> >>>> >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
> >>>> >     Bylaws), and
> >>>> >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
> >>>> >     11.3(f).
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
> >>>> go
> >>>> >     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
> >>>> >     weeks
> >>>> >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
> >>>> >     airplane
> >>>> >     >>>             in the air.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
> >>>> >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
> >>>> any
> >>>> >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
> >>>> >     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done
> >>>> so, we
> >>>> >     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations
> >>>> ASAP
> >>>> >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
> >>>> >     >>>             nomination period).
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
> >>>> and
> >>>> >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
> >>>> >     when
> >>>> >     >>>             it comes to voting.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
> >>>> >     agreed
> >>>> >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
> >>>> >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process
> >>>> as
> >>>> >     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need
> >>>> to get
> >>>> >     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
> >>>> to
> >>>> >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
> >>>> >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
> >>>> >     that and
> >>>> >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
> >>>> >     arrange a
> >>>> >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
> >>>> >     forward.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             Greg
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
> >>>> here, but
> >>>> >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
> >>>> >     Procedures
> >>>> >     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
> >>>> deadline
> >>>> >     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one
> >>>> month to
> >>>> >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
> >>>> >     being
> >>>> >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
> >>>> >     updated in
> >>>> >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
> >>>> >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
> >>>> >     error.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
> >>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
> >>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
> >>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> >>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>> >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> >>>> >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> >>>> >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
> >>>> >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
> >>>> >     Selection Process
> >>>> >     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>>> >     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>>> >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a
> >>>> proposed
> >>>> >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on
> >>>> the
> >>>> >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
> >>>> House.
> >>>> >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
> >>>> changes
> >>>> >     >>>             from the CPH document.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
> >>>> >     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
> >>>> (but
> >>>> >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
> >>>> >     >>>             rights):
> >>>> >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
> >>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
> >>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
> >>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>> >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
> >>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017
> >>>> Board
> >>>> >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
> >>>> >     making it
> >>>> >     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
> >>>> >     the IPC,
> >>>> >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
> >>>> discussion on
> >>>> >     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we
> >>>> have for
> >>>> >     >>>             this year.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             Thanks!
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
> >>>> Teams)
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
> >>>> >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
> >>>> >     >>>             S: gsshatan
> >>>> >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> >>>> >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
> >>>> >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> >>>> >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>             _______________________________________________
> >>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
> >>>> >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> >>>> >     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> >>>> >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
> >>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
> >>>> >     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
> >>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
> >>>> >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>
> >>>> >     >>>         _______________________________________________
> >>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>>> >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>>> >     <mailto: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>
> >>>> >     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>>> >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >>         --
> >>>> >     >>         ------------
> >>>> >     >>         Matthew Shears
> >>>> >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >>>> >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >>>> >     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> >>>> >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
> >>>> >     >>
> >>>> >     >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >     >> 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>
> >>>> >     > --
> >>>> >     > ------------
> >>>> >     > Matthew Shears
> >>>> >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >>>> >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >>>> >     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Mar 10 13:32:07 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:32:07 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN Board to NomCom Letter - Important Skills for
 Board Members
Message-ID: <20170310113202.yetqwmbs3fxyhymj@roller.tarvainen.info>

Addressed to NomCom, but might be of interest to us as well.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2017-03-09_ICANN_Board_to_NomCom.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 513751 bytes
Desc: 2017-03-09 ICANN Board to NomCom.docx
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170310/3fd84ef3/attachment.docx>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 10 13:10:46 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 06:10:46 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BCCWG-ACCT=5D_Krista_Papac_Named_as?=
 =?utf-8?q?=C2=A0ICANN=C2=A0Complaints_Officer?=
In-Reply-To: <8C9E131F-F00C-4C1B-93EC-E692E28AF78A@icann.org>
References: <8C9E131F-F00C-4C1B-93EC-E692E28AF78A@icann.org>
Message-ID: <Kfj_TFzVOOolft5zy2e9UdY1Sx01x7t7pV2sKmUNezyQpyoG2vzIIh0Ukw1pGFdCSA2I1salSRxhv6j1-GC4eP81-4CwGI711cMH_IMr26M=@ferdeline.com>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org>
Date: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:08 am
Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Krista Papac Named as ICANN Complaints Officer
To: CCWG accountability WS2 <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
CC:


Krista Papac Named as ICANN Complaints Officer



https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-03-10-en







10 March 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced that Krista Papac, Director of Registry Services and Engagement for ICANN's Global Domains Division, has been named as ICANN's Complaints Officer.







"The Complaints Officer is an important new function within ICANN to help improve the ICANNorganization," said CEO G?ran Marby. "Krista is a long-time contributor to the ICANN organization and multistakeholder community. She is widely respected by her colleagues across the organization and has built extensive relationships with members of the community. I could not be happier with a candidate to fill this important role."



The Complaints Office will provide a centralized mechanism to track complaints received about the ICANN organization and is an additional way for the ICANN organization to be accountable for and transparent about its performance. The Complaints Officer will work with ICANN's various internal complaints processes to assist improvements and collect data about complaints received across the organization. The Complaints Officer will help ensure that any complaints about systemic issues or concerns about the organization are heard, reviewed, analyzed and resolved as openly as appropriate.







ICANN receives complaints through the Ombudsman, Reconsideration Requests and Independent Review Process filings and through various ICANN functions such as Contractual Compliance. All of these mechanisms and functions will remain the same and are not affected by this additional accountability process.







"I am honored to take on this new role for ICANN," said Krista. "My goal is to help build this new avenue for the community to have their voices heard. As the Complaints Officer, I can help give the organization better visibility into any possible systemic issues that may exist now or in the future, so we can proactively consider improvements."



The Complaints Officer will report directly to John Jeffrey, ICANN's General Counsel and Secretary. Krista will be transitioning away from her Global Domains Division role in the coming weeks, and will begin to build out the Complaints office.







Krista Papac is a seasoned executive with over 15 years of experience in the domain name industry holding a variety of roles including executive leadership and management, strategic planning, business process development, and business development. Krista joined ICANN in May 2013 as the Director of Registry Services & Engagement. During this time, she built a global team of relationship and service development experts by putting people, process and infrastructure in place to support the growth of the gTLD marketplace.







Karen Mulberry



Director, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)



ICANN



12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300



Los Angeles, CA 90094



Phone: +1 424 353 9745
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170310/593c0642/attachment.htm>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Fri Mar 10 14:22:05 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:22:05 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <20170310111143.3htionuwe6wtlnp4@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=BmwfdkZnCALWBoOY+uP9YiqFQrAZwOuiht301hswHBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170310111143.3htionuwe6wtlnp4@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <F00E0D35-1F0A-4220-BA7E-90E7C6DAA835@toast.net>

Thanks Tapani. With so many of our members in transit it's a good idea to wait until folks are settled and all can take part in the discussion.

Count me in favour of having us nominate a single candidate, regardless of who he or she will be. I'm afraid that nominating multiple candidates would allow our colleagues in the  CSG to pursue a "divide and conquer" strategy which would not be in the interest of the NCSG. Let's agree on our candidate and then work hard to support that candidate by helping him or her gain the required support from other parties. United we stand, divided we fall, is a phrase that comes into mind here.

Best,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:12, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rafik, all,
> 
> I've spoken with CSG Chairs and they want to move the nomination
> deadline at least until they've had their face-to-face meetings,
> and I think we could use some extra time, too.
> 
> So there's no reason to rush. I tentatively suggested Tuesday
> night, which would give us time to debate it in our Constituency
> day session.
> 
> We should also discuss whether we should submit multiple
> candidates or decide amongst ourselves first on one
> candidate to nominate.
> 
> Tapani
> 
>> On Mar 10 16:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2
>> names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.
>> if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most of
>> you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00 local
>> Time.
>> we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to
>> suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal we
>> have.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
>>> seat election by this Friday.
>>> 
>>> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
>>> and documenting the process.
>>> 
>>> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
>>> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
>>> members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
>>> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
>>> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
>>> proactive.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ed,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act
>>> quickly on it.
>>> I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
>>> to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks Rafik.
>>>> 
>>>> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
>>>> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
>>>> members of the PC?
>>>> 
>>>> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
>>>> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
>>>> understand the process.
>>>> 
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>>>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>> Selection Process
>>>> 
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also
>>>> our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>>>> 
>>>>> so we have now:
>>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>>>>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>  * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>  * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>  * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>> two
>>>>>  * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>>>>> house.
>>>>>  * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>    against NOTA
>>>>>  * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>>    our act together.
>>>>>  *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>    get our act together.
>>>>> 
>>>>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>>>>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 2017-02-24
>>>>> 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>  * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>  * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>  * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>>> two
>>>>> 
>>>>>  * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>    against NOTA
>>>>>>  * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>>>    our act together.
>>>>>>  *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>    get our act together.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I guess we say:
>>>>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>>>> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>>>>>> parallel starting next week Monday
>>>>>>> - Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>  * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>>  * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>  * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>>>>  * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>>>>>>>    NOTA
>>>>>>>  * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>>>>>>    get our act together.
>>>>>>>  *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>>    get our act together.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>>>>> CSG.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>>>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>>>>>>    succeed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>>    against NOTA
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we
>>>>>> get our
>>>>>>>    act together.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>>>>>>    we get
>>>>>>>    our act together.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    avri
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>>>>> considering/or
>>>>>>>> not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>>>>>>> version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>>>>>>>    week?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>>>>>>    week?  or
>>>>>>>> two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>>>>>>    CSG and
>>>>>>>> NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>>>>>>>> should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In the interim start work on the process?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>>>>>>    quickly. at
>>>>>>>>> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <
>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Hi Matt,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>>>>>>>    topic.
>>>>>>>>>    I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>>>>>>    process
>>>>>>>>>    and adjust the whole timeline.
>>>>>>>>>    how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>    now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>    don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>>>>> press
>>>>>>>>>    us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects
>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>>>    non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Best,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Rafik
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>>>    <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>>>>>>>    <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        Thanks Rafik
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>>>>>>    with it
>>>>>>>>>        and we are running out of time.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>>>>>>>    which
>>>>>>>>>        was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>>        discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>>>>>>>>        selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>        aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>>>>>>>>        timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>>>>>>>>        please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>>>>>>>>        aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>        role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>>>>>>    proposal
>>>>>>>>>        for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>>>>>>    to be
>>>>>>>>>        general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>>>>>>    process and
>>>>>>>>>        timeline for nominations and getting that announced,
>>>>>> so at
>>>>>>>>>        least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        Matthew
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>        On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>        Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>        We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>>>>>>>    board
>>>>>>>>>>        seat election.
>>>>>>>>>>        First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>>>>>>    or not
>>>>>>>>>>        agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>>>>> attended
>>>>>>>>>>        intersessional?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>        We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>>>>        such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>        I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>>>>>>    from our
>>>>>>>>>>        expectations.
>>>>>>>>>>        There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>>>>>>    by end
>>>>>>>>>>        of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>        Best,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>        Rafik
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>>>        From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>    <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>        <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>>>>>>>>>        Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>>>>>    Selection Process
>>>>>>>>>>        To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>    <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>>        <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>    <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Cc:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            All,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            We probably need a different mailing list to
>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>>>>            working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>>>>>>>    small
>>>>>>>>>>            group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>>>>>>>    this
>>>>>>>>>>            is the only active mailing list with both sides
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>            NCPH on it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>>>>> we've
>>>>>>>>>>            already started the process without knowing what
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>            exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            In addition to the adaptation of the CPH
>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>>>>            previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>>>>>>    following
>>>>>>>>>>            for consideration:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>>>>>>    CSG and
>>>>>>>>>>            NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>>>>>>    process.
>>>>>>>>>>            2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>            revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>            Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>>>>>>>>>            3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with
>>>>>> Section
>>>>>>>>>>            11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>>>>> Seats
>>>>>>>>>>            13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>>>>>>    Bylaws), and
>>>>>>>>>>            Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>>>>>>    11.3(f).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            A few thoughts and comments:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>            through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>>>>>>    weeks
>>>>>>>>>>            (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>>>>>>    airplane
>>>>>>>>>>            in the air.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>>>>>>>>>            adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>            decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>>>>>>>>>            preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            C.  If any of our groups have not already done
>>>>>> so, we
>>>>>>>>>>            should put out a call for any other nominations
>>>>>> ASAP
>>>>>>>>>>            (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>            nomination period).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>            the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>>>>>>>    when
>>>>>>>>>>            it comes to voting.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>>>>>>    agreed
>>>>>>>>>>            as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>>>>>>>>>            circumstances, we don't need to use this process
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>            precedent for any future process.  We just need
>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>            through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>            respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>            Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>>>>>>    that and
>>>>>>>>>>            the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>>>>>>    arrange a
>>>>>>>>>>            call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>>>>>>    forward.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            Thanks for reading,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            Greg
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
>>>>>> here, but
>>>>>>>>>>            nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>>>>>>    Procedures
>>>>>>>>>>            were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>>>>> deadline
>>>>>>>>>>            for naming the Director was changed from one
>>>>>> month to
>>>>>>>>>>            two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>>>>>>    being
>>>>>>>>>>            seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>>>>>>    updated in
>>>>>>>>>>            any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>>>>>>>>>            obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>>>>>>>    error.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            *Greg Shatan
>>>>>>>>>>            *C: 917-816-6428
>>>>>>>>>>            S: gsshatan
>>>>>>>>>>            Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>>>>>>>            gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>    <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>    <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>>>            From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>    <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>            <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>    <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>            Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>>>>>>>>>            Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>>>>>>    Selection Process
>>>>>>>>>>            To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>    <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>>            <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>    <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a
>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>            interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>            Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>>>>> House.
>>>>>>>>>>            Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>            from the CPH document.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>>>>>>>>>            suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>            everyone has "edit"
>>>>>>>>>>            rights):
>>>>>>>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>>>>> Board
>>>>>>>>>>            Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>>>>>>    making it
>>>>>>>>>>            a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>>>>>>    the IPC,
>>>>>>>>>>            BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>>>>> discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>            this basis, given the short amount of time we
>>>>>> have for
>>>>>>>>>>            this year.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>>>>> Teams)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            *Greg Shatan
>>>>>>>>>>            *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>>>>>>>>            S: gsshatan
>>>>>>>>>>            Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>>>>    <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>>>>>>>>            gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>    <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>    <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>            _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>            Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>            Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>    <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>>            <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>    <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>>>>    <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>>>>>>>>>            <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>>>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>>>>    <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>        NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>        NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>    <mailto: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>
>>>>>>>>>>        <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>    <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>        --
>>>>>>>>>        ------------
>>>>>>>>>        Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>>>        Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>>>>        Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>>>>        + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>>>>>    <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From avri at doria.org  Fri Mar 10 16:03:02 2017
From: avri at doria.org (avri@acm.org)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:03:02 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1752318536.1492.ncsg-pc@lists.ncsg.is>

Fine with me
Avri


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message --------From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> Date: 3/10/17  08:44  (GMT+01:00) To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination 
Hi All,
the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2 names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most of you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00 local Time.we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal we have.?
Best,
Rafik?


2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
Hi everyone,
As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board seat election by this Friday.?
We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating and documenting the process.?
I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.?Any volunteer to help me to document the process.It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be proactive.?

Best,
Rafik?
On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ed,
Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act quickly on it.I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.?
Best,
Rafik

2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
Thanks Rafik.?

?

One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just members of the PC?

?

I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved in the Board selection process before and would just?like to fully understand the process.

?

Kind Regards,

?

Ed?

?

?

?


From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM

To: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>

Cc: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process

?


Hi everyone,

?

since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .

?

Best,

?

Rafik

?
2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:



Hi Avri,

?

thanks for the suggestion,

?

so we have now:

- we cannot accept CSG proposal.

- we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel starting (Wednesday?)



Our counter-proposal is:



? * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process

? * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.

? * as many nominees as come forward in a week.

? * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two

? * a joint interview of the top 2?before second round with the whole house.

? * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader

? ? against NOTA

? * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get

? ? our act together.

? *? then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA? talk until we

? ? get our act together.



we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.

can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?

??

Best,

?

Rafik
2017-02-24

?21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:


?




some minor typo corrections



Our counter-proposal is:



? * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process

? * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.

? * as many nominees as come forward in a week.

? * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two?

? * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader

? ? against NOTA

? * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get

? ? our act together.

? *? then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA? talk until we

? ? get our act together.



On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi,

>

> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions

>

> I guess we say:

> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.

> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in

> parallel starting next week Monday

> - Our counter-proposal is:

>

>? ?* NCA is not to removed from any part of the process

>? ?* there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.

>? ?* as many nominees as come forward in a week.

>? ?* 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two

>? ?* 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against

>? ? ?NOTA

>? ?* 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we

>? ? ?get our act together.

>? ?*? then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA? talk until we

>? ? ?get our act together.

>

> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG.

>

> Best,

>

> Rafik

>

> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org>>:


>

>? ? ?Hi,

>

>? ? ?I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal

>

>? ? ?- NCA is not to removed from any part of the process

>

>? ? ?- we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to

>? ? ?succeed.

>

>? ? ?- as many nominees as come forward in a week.

>

>? ? ?- 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two

>

>? ? ?- 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader

>? ? ?against NOTA

>

>? ? ?- 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our

>? ? ?act together.

>

>? ? ?- then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA? talk until

>? ? ?we get

>? ? ?our act together.

>

>? ? ?avri

>

>? ? ?On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:

>? ? ?>

>? ? ?> Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or

>? ? ?> not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative

>? ? ?> version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next

>? ? ?week?

>? ? ?>

>? ? ?> And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next

>? ? ?week?? or

>? ? ?> two weeks from Monday?? ?Probably would be useful to have the

>? ? ?CSG and

>? ? ?> NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.? Agree with CSG whether

>? ? ?> should be nomination and/or self nomination.

>? ? ?>

>? ? ?> In the interim start work on the process?

>? ? ?>

>? ? ?> Matthew

>? ? ?>

>? ? ?>

>? ? ?> On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:

>? ? ?>> Hi all,

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG

>? ? ?quickly. at

>? ? ?>> least covering the topic of nomination.

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>> Best,

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>> Rafik

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com

>? ? ?<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>

>? ? ?>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>:

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ?Hi Matt,

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ?thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this

>? ? ?topic.

>? ? ?>>? ? ?I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the

>? ? ?process

>? ? ?>>? ? ?and adjust the whole timeline.

>? ? ?>>? ? ?how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for

>? ? ?>>? ? ?now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we

>? ? ?>>? ? ?don't have so much time for a long nomination period.

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ?I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press

>? ? ?>>? ? ?us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are

>? ? ?>>? ? ?non-negotiable with regard to the process.

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ?Best,

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ?Rafik

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ?2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org

>? ? ?<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

>? ? ?>>? ? ?<mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:


>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?Thanks Rafik

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal

>? ? ?with it

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?and we are running out of time.

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,

>? ? ?which

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?was not really discussed further.? Then we had some general

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?discussion about the need to do something on the Board

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?selection process.? People voiced their views on different

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?aspects of the process and there was concern over the

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?please jump in as I may have missed some important

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?aspects).? ?Markus announced he wanted to continue in the

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?role; I announced I was going to run.? Then the CSG

>? ? ?proposal

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.? There seemed

>? ? ?to be

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a

>? ? ?process and

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?least the initial stages of the process are underway.

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?Matthew

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?Hi everyone,

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on

>? ? ?board

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?seat election.

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what

>? ? ?or not

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?intersessional?

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far

>? ? ?from our

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?expectations.

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it

>? ? ?by end

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?of this week but we do need to be ready.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?Best,

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?Rafik

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?---------- Forwarded message ----------

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat

>? ? ?Selection Process

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org

>? ? ?<mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>


>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?<mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org

>? ? ?<mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?Cc:

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?All,

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?We probably need a different mailing list to finish

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?working on the Board Seat selection process, and a

>? ? ?small

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think

>? ? ?this

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?is the only active mailing list with both sides of the

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?NCPH on it.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?We basically have no time to work this out, and we've

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?already started the process without knowing what it is

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?exactly, since we have now received nominations.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?previously circulated, I'm also attaching the

>? ? ?following

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?for consideration:

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?1.? Some bullet-points from an exchange between

>? ? ?CSG and

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft

>? ? ?process.

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?2.? The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?3.? A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the

>? ? ?Bylaws), and

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section

>? ? ?11.3(f).

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?A few thoughts and comments:

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?A.? We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?through a process that is contemplated to take 21

>? ? ?weeks

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?(just to go through).? Talk about building the

>? ? ?airplane

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?in the air.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?B.? At the Intersessional, we discussed possible

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?decisions.? It's not clear to me whether Staff is

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?preparing a further revised draft.? I'll ask.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?C.? If any of our groups have not already done so, we

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?(though it would be nice to know the end of the

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?nomination period).

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?D.? Without making any judgments, the CPH process and

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different

>? ? ?when

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?it comes to voting.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?E.? We should figure out how to get this process

>? ? ?agreed

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?as quickly as possible.? Given the unusual

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?circumstances, we don't need to use this process as

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?precedent for any future process.? We just need to get

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?through this selection.? One approach is for NCSG to

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?respond to the draft sent at the end of the

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Intersessional.? However, given the gap between

>? ? ?that and

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the bullet-points, it might just be better to

>? ? ?arrange a

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball

>? ? ?forward.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Thanks for reading,

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Greg

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?P.S.? It's not all that important how we got here, but

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO

>? ? ?Procedures

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?for naming the Director was changed from one month to

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?two months (briefly) and then six months prior to

>? ? ?being

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?seated.? (The GNSO Procedures will need to be

>? ? ?updated in

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?any event, since the Bylaws references are now

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?obsolete.))? The draft bullet-points repeated this

>? ? ?error.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?B.? Since we are doing this with very little time

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?*Greg Shatan

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?*C: 917-816-6428

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?S: gsshatan

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?---------- Forwarded message ----------

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board

>? ? ?Selection Process

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org

>? ? ?<mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?<mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org


>? ? ?<mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?interim Board Selection Process based closely on the

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House.

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?from the CPH document.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?A Google Docs version can be found here, where any

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?everyone has "edit"

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?rights):

>? ? ?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing

>? ? ?<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ? <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing

>? ? ?<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Seat process and then revisit afterward before

>? ? ?making it

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?a permanent rather than "interim" process.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?This has not been reviewed by the membership of

>? ? ?the IPC,

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?this basis, given the short amount of time we have for

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?this year.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?We look forward to your thoughts.

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Thanks!

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams)

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?*Greg Shatan

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?*C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?S: gsshatan

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428

>? ? ?<tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com

>? ? ?<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?_______________________________________________

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org

>? ? ?<mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?<mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org

>? ? ?<mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ? https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017

>? ? ?<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ?<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017

>? ? ?<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?_______________________________________________

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?NCSG-PC mailing list

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>

>? ? ?<mailto: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>

>? ? ?>>>? ? ? ? ?<https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

>? ? ?<https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?--

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?------------

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?Matthew Shears

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

>? ? ?>>? ? ? ? ?+ 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>

>? ? ?<tel:+44%207712%20472987>

>? ? ?>>

>? ? ?>> _______________________________________________

>? ? ?>> 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>

>? ? ?> --

>? ? ?> ------------

>? ? ?> Matthew Shears

>? ? ?> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

>? ? ?> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

>? ? ?> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>

>? ? ?>

>? ? ?> _______________________________________________

>? ? ?> 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>

>

>

>? ? ?---

>? ? ?This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

>? ? ?https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

>

>? ? ?_______________________________________________

>? ? ?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>

>

>



?

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

?


















-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170310/5eaeecb6/attachment.htm>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Fri Mar 10 17:05:25 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:05:25 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <0C0C553D-D2AB-4523-8A1C-9FE71251757D@davecake.net>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=BmwfdkZnCALWBoOY+uP9YiqFQrAZwOuiht301hswHBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170310111143.3htionuwe6wtlnp4@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <F00E0D35-1F0A-4220-BA7E-90E7C6DAA835@toast.net>
 <0C0C553D-D2AB-4523-8A1C-9FE71251757D@davecake.net>
Message-ID: <99B947CC-D812-4814-A3FE-C038CAF83F99@toast.net>


> 
> If the CSG decides to play kingmaker to decide which of the two candidates that are acceptable to us they support, then either way it is a good outcome for us. 

Disagree.

Outsourcing to the CSG the decision as to which of two candidates proposed by some members of the NCSG for the Board seat should be selected sets a dangerous precedent. In the future it would allow a self nominated candidate with little, but some,  support in the NCSG to become a Board member by virtue of CSG support. That simply is a bad idea.

Ed
> 
> 
> David
> 
>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 1:22 pm, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Tapani. With so many of our members in transit it's a good idea to wait until folks are settled and all can take part in the discussion.
>> 
>> Count me in favour of having us nominate a single candidate, regardless of who he or she will be. I'm afraid that nominating multiple candidates would allow our colleagues in the  CSG to pursue a "divide and conquer" strategy which would not be in the interest of the NCSG. Let's agree on our candidate and then work hard to support that candidate by helping him or her gain the required support from other parties. United we stand, divided we fall, is a phrase that comes into mind here.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ed Morris
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 12:12, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Rafik, all,
>>> 
>>> I've spoken with CSG Chairs and they want to move the nomination
>>> deadline at least until they've had their face-to-face meetings,
>>> and I think we could use some extra time, too.
>>> 
>>> So there's no reason to rush. I tentatively suggested Tuesday
>>> night, which would give us time to debate it in our Constituency
>>> day session.
>>> 
>>> We should also discuss whether we should submit multiple
>>> candidates or decide amongst ourselves first on one
>>> candidate to nominate.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 10 16:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2
>>>> names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.
>>>> if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most of
>>>> you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00 local
>>>> Time.
>>>> we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to
>>>> suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal we
>>>> have.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
>>>>> seat election by this Friday.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
>>>>> and documenting the process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
>>>>> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
>>>>> members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
>>>>> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
>>>>> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
>>>>> proactive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act
>>>>> quickly on it.
>>>>> I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
>>>>> to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Rafik.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
>>>>>> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
>>>>>> members of the PC?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
>>>>>> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
>>>>>> understand the process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>>>>>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
>>>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>>>> Selection Process
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also
>>>>>> our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> so we have now:
>>>>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>>>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>>>>>>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>> * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>>>>>>> house.
>>>>>>> * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>>  against NOTA
>>>>>>> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>>>>  our act together.
>>>>>>> *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>>  get our act together.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>>>>>>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 2017-02-24
>>>>>>> 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>>> * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>>>  against NOTA
>>>>>>>> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>>>>>  our act together.
>>>>>>>> *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>>>  get our act together.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I guess we say:
>>>>>>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>>>>>> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>>>>>>>> parallel starting next week Monday
>>>>>>>>> - Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>>> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>>>> * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>>> * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>>>>>> * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>>>>>>>>>  NOTA
>>>>>>>>> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>>>>>>>>  get our act together.
>>>>>>>>> *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>>>>  get our act together.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>>>>>>> CSG.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>>>>>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>>>>>>>>  succeed.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>>>>  against NOTA
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we
>>>>>>>> get our
>>>>>>>>>  act together.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>>>>>>>>  we get
>>>>>>>>>  our act together.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  avri
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>>>>>>> considering/or
>>>>>>>>>> not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>>>>>>>>> version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>>>>>>>>>  week?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>>>>>>>>  week?  or
>>>>>>>>>> two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>>>>>>>>  CSG and
>>>>>>>>>> NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>>>>>>>>>> should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In the interim start work on the process?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>>>>>>>>  quickly. at
>>>>>>>>>>> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <
>>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  Hi Matt,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>>>>>>>>>  topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>  I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>>>>>>>>  process
>>>>>>>>>>>  and adjust the whole timeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>  how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>  now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>  don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>>>>>>> press
>>>>>>>>>>>  us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects
>>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>>>>>  non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      Thanks Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>>>>>>>>  with it
>>>>>>>>>>>      and we are running out of time.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>>>>>>>>>  which
>>>>>>>>>>>      was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>>>>      discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>>>>>>>>>>      selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>      aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>>>>>>>>>>      timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>>>>>>>>>>      please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>>>>>>>>>>      aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>      role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>>>>>>>>  proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>      for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>>>>>>>>  to be
>>>>>>>>>>>      general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>>>>>>>>  process and
>>>>>>>>>>>      timeline for nominations and getting that announced,
>>>>>>>> so at
>>>>>>>>>>>      least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>      On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>      Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>      We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>>>>>>>>>  board
>>>>>>>>>>>>      seat election.
>>>>>>>>>>>>      First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>>>>>>>>  or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>      agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>>>>>>> attended
>>>>>>>>>>>>      intersessional?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>      We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>>>>>>      such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>      I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>>>>>>>>  from our
>>>>>>>>>>>>      expectations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>      There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>>>>>>>>  by end
>>>>>>>>>>>>      of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>      Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>      Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>      From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>      Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>>>>>>>  Selection Process
>>>>>>>>>>>>      To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      Cc:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          All,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          We probably need a different mailing list to
>>>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>>>>>>          working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>>>>>>>>>  small
>>>>>>>>>>>>          group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>>>>>>>>>  this
>>>>>>>>>>>>          is the only active mailing list with both sides
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>          NCPH on it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>>>>>>> we've
>>>>>>>>>>>>          already started the process without knowing what
>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>          exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          In addition to the adaptation of the CPH
>>>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>>>>>>          previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>>>>>>>>  following
>>>>>>>>>>>>          for consideration:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>>>>>>>>  CSG and
>>>>>>>>>>>>          NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>>>>>>>>  process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>          2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>          revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>          3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with
>>>>>>>> Section
>>>>>>>>>>>>          11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>>>>>>> Seats
>>>>>>>>>>>>          13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>>>>>>>>  Bylaws), and
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>>>>>>>>  11.3(f).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          A few thoughts and comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>          through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>>>>>>>>  weeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>          (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>>>>>>>>  airplane
>>>>>>>>>>>>          in the air.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>          adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>          decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>>>>>>>>>>>          preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          C.  If any of our groups have not already done
>>>>>>>> so, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>          should put out a call for any other nominations
>>>>>>>> ASAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>          (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>          nomination period).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>          the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>>>>>>>>>  when
>>>>>>>>>>>>          it comes to voting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>>>>>>>>  agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>          as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>>>>>>>>>>>          circumstances, we don't need to use this process
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>          precedent for any future process.  We just need
>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>          through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>          respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>>>>>>>>  that and
>>>>>>>>>>>>          the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>>>>>>>>  arrange a
>>>>>>>>>>>>          call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>>>>>>>>  forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Thanks for reading,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
>>>>>>>> here, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>          nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>  Procedures
>>>>>>>>>>>>          were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>>>>>>> deadline
>>>>>>>>>>>>          for naming the Director was changed from one
>>>>>>>> month to
>>>>>>>>>>>>          two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>>>>>>>>  being
>>>>>>>>>>>>          seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>>>>>>>>  updated in
>>>>>>>>>>>>          any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>>>>>>>>>>>          obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>>>>>>>>>  error.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          *Greg Shatan
>>>>>>>>>>>>          *C: 917-816-6428
>>>>>>>>>>>>          S: gsshatan
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>>>>>>>>>          gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>          From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>>>>>>>>  Selection Process
>>>>>>>>>>>>          To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a
>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>          interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>>>>>>> House.
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>          from the CPH document.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>>>>>>>>>>>          suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>>>          everyone has "edit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>          rights):
>>>>>>>>>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>  <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>>>>>>> Board
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>>>>>>>>  making it
>>>>>>>>>>>>          a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>>>>>>>>  the IPC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>          BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>>>>>>> discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>          this basis, given the short amount of time we
>>>>>>>> have for
>>>>>>>>>>>>          this year.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>>>>>>> Teams)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          *Greg Shatan
>>>>>>>>>>>>          *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          S: gsshatan
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>>>>>>  <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>          Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>>>>>>  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>>>>>>>>>>>          <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>>>>>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>>>>>>  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>      NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>      NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>  <mailto: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>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>  <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>      --
>>>>>>>>>>>      ------------
>>>>>>>>>>>      Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>>>>>      Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>>>>>>      Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>>>>>>      + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>>>>>>>  <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 avri at apc.org  Fri Mar 10 17:24:35 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:24:35 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <20170310111143.3htionuwe6wtlnp4@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=BmwfdkZnCALWBoOY+uP9YiqFQrAZwOuiht301hswHBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170310111143.3htionuwe6wtlnp4@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <41ba191b-fffe-c1e0-16e3-05b430c08ccf@apc.org>

Hi,

No problem with delay.
But i thought we had decided on multiple candidates not winnowing down
to one.

avri

> Hi Rafik, all,
>
> I've spoken with CSG Chairs and they want to move the nomination
> deadline at least until they've had their face-to-face meetings,
> and I think we could use some extra time, too.
>
> So there's no reason to rush. I tentatively suggested Tuesday
> night, which would give us time to debate it in our Constituency
> day session.
>
> We should also discuss whether we should submit multiple
> candidates or decide amongst ourselves first on one
> candidate to nominate.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 10 16:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2
>> names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.
>> if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most of
>> you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00 local
>> Time.
>> we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to
>> suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal we
>> have.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
>>> seat election by this Friday.
>>>
>>> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
>>> and documenting the process.
>>>
>>> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
>>> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
>>> members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
>>> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
>>> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
>>> proactive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ed,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act
>>> quickly on it.
>>> I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
>>> to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Rafik.
>>>>
>>>> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
>>>> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
>>>> members of the PC?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
>>>> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
>>>> understand the process.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>>>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>> Selection Process
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also
>>>> our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>>>>
>>>>> so we have now:
>>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>>>>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>
>>>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>> two
>>>>>   * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>>>>> house.
>>>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>     against NOTA
>>>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>>     our act together.
>>>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>     get our act together.
>>>>>
>>>>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>>>>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 2017-02-24
>>>>>  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>>> two
>>>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>     against NOTA
>>>>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>>>     our act together.
>>>>>>   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>     get our act together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess we say:
>>>>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>>>> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>>>>>> parallel starting next week Monday
>>>>>>> - Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>>   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>>>>   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>>>>>>>     NOTA
>>>>>>>   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>>>>>>     get our act together.
>>>>>>>   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>>     get our act together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>>>>> CSG.
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>>>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>>>>>>     succeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>>     against NOTA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we
>>>>>> get our
>>>>>>>     act together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>>>>>>     we get
>>>>>>>     our act together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     avri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>>>>> considering/or
>>>>>>>     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>>>>>>     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>>>>>>>     week?
>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>>>>>>     week?  or
>>>>>>>     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>>>>>>     CSG and
>>>>>>>     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>>>>>>>     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>     > In the interim start work on the process?
>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>     > Matthew
>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>     >> Hi all,
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>>>>>>     quickly. at
>>>>>>>     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >> Best,
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >> Rafik
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <
>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>     Hi Matt,
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>>>>>>>     topic.
>>>>>>>     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>>>>>>     process
>>>>>>>     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>>>>>>     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>>>>> press
>>>>>>>     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects
>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>     Best,
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>     Rafik
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>>>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>>>>>     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>         Thanks Rafik
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>>>>>>     with it
>>>>>>>     >>         and we are running out of time.
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>>>>>>>     which
>>>>>>>     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>>>>>>     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>>>>>>     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>>>>>>     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>>>>>>     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>>>>>>     proposal
>>>>>>>     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>>>>>>     to be
>>>>>>>     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>>>>>>     process and
>>>>>>>     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced,
>>>>>> so at
>>>>>>>     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>         Matthew
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>     >>>         Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>>>>>>>     board
>>>>>>>     >>>         seat election.
>>>>>>>     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>>>>>>     or not
>>>>>>>     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>>>>> attended
>>>>>>>     >>>         intersessional?
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>>>>>>     from our
>>>>>>>     >>>         expectations.
>>>>>>>     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>>>>>>     by end
>>>>>>>     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         Best,
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         Rafik
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>>>>>>     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>>>>>     Selection Process
>>>>>>>     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         Cc:
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             All,
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to
>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>>>>>>>     small
>>>>>>>     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>>>>>>>     this
>>>>>>>     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>     >>>             NCPH on it.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>>>>> we've
>>>>>>>     >>>             already started the process without knowing what
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH
>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>>>>>>     following
>>>>>>>     >>>             for consideration:
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>>>>>>     CSG and
>>>>>>>     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>>>>>>     process.
>>>>>>>     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>>>>>>     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with
>>>>>> Section
>>>>>>>     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>>>>> Seats
>>>>>>>     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>>>>>>     Bylaws), and
>>>>>>>     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>>>>>>     11.3(f).
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>>>>>>     weeks
>>>>>>>     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>>>>>>     airplane
>>>>>>>     >>>             in the air.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>>>>>>     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>>>>>>     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done
>>>>>> so, we
>>>>>>>     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations
>>>>>> ASAP
>>>>>>>     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>>>>>>     >>>             nomination period).
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>>>>>>>     when
>>>>>>>     >>>             it comes to voting.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>>>>>>     agreed
>>>>>>>     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>>>>>>     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need
>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>>>>>>     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>>>>>>     that and
>>>>>>>     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>>>>>>     arrange a
>>>>>>>     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>>>>>>     forward.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             Greg
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
>>>>>> here, but
>>>>>>>     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>>>>>>     Procedures
>>>>>>>     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>>>>> deadline
>>>>>>>     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one
>>>>>> month to
>>>>>>>     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>>>>>>     being
>>>>>>>     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>>>>>>     updated in
>>>>>>>     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>>>>>>     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>>>>>>>     error.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>>>>>     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>>>>>>     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>>>>>     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>>>>     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>>>>>>     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>>>>>>     Selection Process
>>>>>>>     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a
>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>>>>> House.
>>>>>>>     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>     >>>             from the CPH document.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>>>>>>     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>>>>>>>     >>>             rights):
>>>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>>>>> Board
>>>>>>>     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>>>>>>     making it
>>>>>>>     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>>>>>>     the IPC,
>>>>>>>     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>>>>> discussion on
>>>>>>>     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we
>>>>>> have for
>>>>>>>     >>>             this year.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             Thanks!
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>>>>> Teams)
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>>>>>     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>>>>>     >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>>>>>     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>>>>     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>>>>>     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>>>>>>     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>>>>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>>>>>>     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>>>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>>>>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>     >>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>     <mailto: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>
>>>>>>>     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >>         --
>>>>>>>     >>         ------------
>>>>>>>     >>         Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>>     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>>     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>>>>>     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>     >> 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>
>>>>>>>     > --
>>>>>>>     > ------------
>>>>>>>     > Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>>     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>>     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar 10 18:10:39 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:10:39 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <41ba191b-fffe-c1e0-16e3-05b430c08ccf@apc.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=RT3-tymSHfubAM8gd28otxVaU+B=sSM=DrXRwj+-FFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThn=mnHaUxYd=Zsrevw=f8vLVycmduraWA=iDEidE7ZsVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkjpexoG7KeURMPzCG-TNqFPMfSVnoa0taPcmUmStB+Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnZNEhGybnok6P8ddhNwuUCBEY8KH0y7hq=a4od8hHqfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkuh-t56Qb-Pt7GoeWr-GONVOVtVBvZO=Aq3zODNstyQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnpx8s5a_vT49rC3FnpYAySjL61pcm-ukiQ162dnXghqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnWohAGcV0KBJ_-FLZGDi8DMrx_zK0PtkAqDdF2erRd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkdppin4nqZs=0FjhAxsQj=Y_19iaCS14f6GJ=2FD0qFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=BmwfdkZnCALWBoOY+uP9YiqFQrAZwOuiht301hswHBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170310111143.3htionuwe6wtlnp4@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <41ba191b-fffe-c1e0-16e3-05b430c08ccf@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1763c7a5-4476-8e34-5aa3-d05f004e4620@mail.utoronto.ca>

ditto.

SP


On 2017-03-10 10:24, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No problem with delay.
> But i thought we had decided on multiple candidates not winnowing down
> to one.
>
> avri
>
>> Hi Rafik, all,
>>
>> I've spoken with CSG Chairs and they want to move the nomination
>> deadline at least until they've had their face-to-face meetings,
>> and I think we could use some extra time, too.
>>
>> So there's no reason to rush. I tentatively suggested Tuesday
>> night, which would give us time to debate it in our Constituency
>> day session.
>>
>> We should also discuss whether we should submit multiple
>> candidates or decide amongst ourselves first on one
>> candidate to nominate.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mar 10 16:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2
>>> names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.
>>> if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most of
>>> you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00 local
>>> Time.
>>> we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to
>>> suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal we
>>> have.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the board
>>>> seat election by this Friday.
>>>>
>>>> We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here: nominating
>>>> and documenting the process.
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
>>>> self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination by PC
>>>> members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process.
>>>> Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
>>>> It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
>>>> proactive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act
>>>> quickly on it.
>>>> I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
>>>> to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Rafik.
>>>>>
>>>>> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
>>>>> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
>>>>> members of the PC?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
>>>>> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
>>>>> understand the process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>>>>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
>>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>>> Selection Process
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also
>>>>> our suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for the suggestion,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so we have now:
>>>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
>>>>>> starting (Wednesday?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>    * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>    * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>    * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>>> two
>>>>>>    * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
>>>>>> house.
>>>>>>    * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>      against NOTA
>>>>>>    * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>>>      our act together.
>>>>>>    *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>      get our act together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
>>>>>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 2017-02-24
>>>>>>   21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> some minor typo corrections
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>    * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>>    * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>    * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>    * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>>      against NOTA
>>>>>>>    * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get
>>>>>>>      our act together.
>>>>>>>    *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>>      get our act together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess we say:
>>>>>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>>>>>>>> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>>>>>>>> parallel starting next week Monday
>>>>>>>> - Our counter-proposal is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>>    * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>>>>>>>    * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>>    * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>>>>>    * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>>>>>>>>      NOTA
>>>>>>>>    * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>>>>>>>>      get our act together.
>>>>>>>>    *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>>>>>>>>      get our act together.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with
>>>>>>> CSG.
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:
>>>>>>> avri at apc.org>>:
>>>>>>>>      Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>>>>>>>>      succeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>>>>>>>>      against NOTA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we
>>>>>>> get our
>>>>>>>>      act together.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>>>>>>>>      we get
>>>>>>>>      our act together.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      avri
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>      > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are
>>>>>>> considering/or
>>>>>>>>      > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>>>>>>>>      > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>>>>>>>>      week?
>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>      > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>>>>>>>>      week?  or
>>>>>>>>      > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>>>>>>>>      CSG and
>>>>>>>>      > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>>>>>>>>      > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>      > In the interim start work on the process?
>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>      > Matthew
>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>      > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>      >> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>>>>>>>>      quickly. at
>>>>>>>>      >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >> Best,
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >> Rafik
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <
>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>      >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>     Hi Matt,
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>>>>>>>>      topic.
>>>>>>>>      >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>>>>>>>>      process
>>>>>>>>      >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>>>>>>>      >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>      >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates?
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>      >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to
>>>>>>> press
>>>>>>>>      >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects
>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>>      >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>     Best,
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>     Rafik
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>>>>>>      >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>:
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>         Thanks Rafik
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>>>>>>>>      with it
>>>>>>>>      >>         and we are running out of time.
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>>>>>>>>      which
>>>>>>>>      >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some
>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>      >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>>>>>>>      >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>      >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>>>>>>>      >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>>>>>>>      >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>>>>>>>      >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>      >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>>>>>>>>      proposal
>>>>>>>>      >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>>>>>>>>      to be
>>>>>>>>      >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>>>>>>>>      process and
>>>>>>>>      >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced,
>>>>>>> so at
>>>>>>>>      >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>         Matthew
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>      >>>         Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>>>>>>>>      board
>>>>>>>>      >>>         seat election.
>>>>>>>>      >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>>>>>>>>      or not
>>>>>>>>      >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who
>>>>>>> attended
>>>>>>>>      >>>         intersessional?
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable
>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>>      >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>>>>>>>>      from our
>>>>>>>>      >>>         expectations.
>>>>>>>>      >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>>>>>>>>      by end
>>>>>>>>      >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         Best,
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         Rafik
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>      >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>>>>>>>      >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>>>>>>>>      Selection Process
>>>>>>>>      >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         Cc:
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             All,
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to
>>>>>>> finish
>>>>>>>>      >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>>>>>>>>      small
>>>>>>>>      >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>>>>>>>>      this
>>>>>>>>      >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>      >>>             NCPH on it.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and
>>>>>>> we've
>>>>>>>>      >>>             already started the process without knowing what
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>      >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH
>>>>>>> procedures
>>>>>>>>      >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>>>>>>>>      following
>>>>>>>>      >>>             for consideration:
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>>>>>>>>      CSG and
>>>>>>>>      >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>>>>>>>>      process.
>>>>>>>>      >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo
>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>      >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>>>>>>>      >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with
>>>>>>> Section
>>>>>>>>      >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for
>>>>>>> Seats
>>>>>>>>      >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>>>>>>>>      Bylaws), and
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>>>>>>>>      11.3(f).
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>      >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>>>>>>>>      weeks
>>>>>>>>      >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>>>>>>>>      airplane
>>>>>>>>      >>>             in the air.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>>>>>>>      >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>      >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>>>>>>>      >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done
>>>>>>> so, we
>>>>>>>>      >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations
>>>>>>> ASAP
>>>>>>>>      >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>>>>>>>      >>>             nomination period).
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>      >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>>>>>>>>      when
>>>>>>>>      >>>             it comes to voting.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>>>>>>>>      agreed
>>>>>>>>      >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>>>>>>>      >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>      >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need
>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>      >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>      >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>>>>>>>>      that and
>>>>>>>>      >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>>>>>>>>      arrange a
>>>>>>>>      >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>>>>>>>>      forward.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Thanks for reading,
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Greg
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got
>>>>>>> here, but
>>>>>>>>      >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>>>>>>>>      Procedures
>>>>>>>>      >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws
>>>>>>> deadline
>>>>>>>>      >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one
>>>>>>> month to
>>>>>>>>      >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>>>>>>>>      being
>>>>>>>>      >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>>>>>>>>      updated in
>>>>>>>>      >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>>>>>>>      >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>>>>>>>>      error.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>>>>>>      >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>>>>>>>      >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>>>>>      >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>      >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>>>>>>>>      Selection Process
>>>>>>>>      >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a
>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>      >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties
>>>>>>> House.
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>      >>>             from the CPH document.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>>>>>>>      >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode
>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>      >>>             everyone has "edit"
>>>>>>>>      >>>             rights):
>>>>>>>>      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>       <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>>>>>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>>>>>>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017
>>>>>>> Board
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>>>>>>>>      making it
>>>>>>>>      >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>>>>>>>>      the IPC,
>>>>>>>>      >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the
>>>>>>> discussion on
>>>>>>>>      >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we
>>>>>>> have for
>>>>>>>>      >>>             this year.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Thanks!
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional
>>>>>>> Teams)
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>>>>>>      >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             S: gsshatan
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>>>>>>      <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>>>>>>>      >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>>>>>>      <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>       https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>>>>>      <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>>>>>>>      >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman
>>>>>>> /listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>>>>>>      <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>      >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>      >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>      <mailto: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>
>>>>>>>>      >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>      <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >>         --
>>>>>>>>      >>         ------------
>>>>>>>>      >>         Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>>      >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>>>      >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>>>      >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>>>>>>>      <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>      >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>      >> 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>
>>>>>>>>      > --
>>>>>>>>      > ------------
>>>>>>>>      > Matthew Shears
>>>>>>>>      > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>>>>>      > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>>>>>      > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170310/eda3698b/attachment.htm>

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Sat Mar 11 15:35:04 2017
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:35:04 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
In-Reply-To: <20170310150213.94E2F81FC@posti.effi.org>
References: <20170310150213.94E2F81FC@posti.effi.org>
Message-ID: <48edfb93-f9cf-ed5e-5837-30b77d1203a2@digitaldissidents.org>

+1

On 03/10/2017 03:03 PM, avri at acm.org wrote:
> Fine with me
> 
> Avri
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: 3/10/17 08:44 (GMT+01:00)
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Board seat nomination
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> the deadline was suggested for nomination is today. we have till now 2
> names: Markus Kummer and Mathew Shears.
> if we are ok with this, I will send the names to CSG today. I think most
> of you are already in Copenhagen, so please share your thought by 16:00
> local Time.
> we didn't respond yet to Greg questions, and I guess the best way is to
> suggest a meeting with and discussing the process based on the proposal
> we have. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2017-03-07 19:52 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> 
>     Hi everyone,
> 
>     As we agreed before, we have to get candidates nominated for the
>     board seat election by this Friday. 
> 
>     We don't have a procedure written yet but we need to act here:
>     nominating and documenting the process. 
> 
>     I am thinking we should encourage people to nominate but not
>     self-nomination. And because time constraint to make the nomination
>     by PC members and keeping NCSG members informed about the process. 
>     Any volunteer to help me to document the process.
>     It is not optimal but I sensed from the discussion that we got to be
>     proactive. 
> 
> 
>     Best,
> 
>     Rafik 
> 
>     On Mar 1, 2017 9:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         Hi Ed,
> 
>         Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and
>         act quickly on it.
>         I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC,
>         but looking to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to
>         get nominees. 
> 
>         Best,
> 
>         Rafik
> 
>         2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>         <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
> 
>             Thanks Rafik. 
>              
>             One question; Are nominations within our group to be self
>             nominations, nominations by others, both, and opened to the
>             general membership or just members of the PC?
>              
>             I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't
>             been involved in the Board selection process before and
>             would just like to fully understand the process.
>              
>             Kind Regards,
>              
>             Ed 
>              
>              
>              
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>             <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>             *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 PM
>             *To*: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org
>             <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>             *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>             <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>             *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017]
>             Board Seat Selection Process
>              
>             Hi everyone,
>              
>             since there was no objection, I will send our response to
>             CSG and also our suggestion for nomination period to run
>             from 1st March to 10th March .
>              
>             Best,
>              
>             Rafik
>              
>             2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
>             <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> 
>                 Hi Avri,
>                  
>                 thanks for the suggestion,
>                  
>                 so we have now:
>                 - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>                 - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG
>                 in parallel starting (Wednesday?)
> 
>                 Our counter-proposal is:
> 
>                   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>                 succeed.
>                   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                   * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
>                 round between top two
>                  * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round
>                 with the whole house.
>                   * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd
>                 round of leader
>                     against NOTA
>                   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat
>                 open until we get
>                     our act together.
>                   *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>                 NCA  talk until we
>                     get our act together.
> 
>                 we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and
>                 document that.
>                 can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and
>                 respond ot CSG?
>                   
>                 Best,
>                  
>                 Rafik
>                 2017-02-24
>                  21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org
>                 <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>                  
> 
> 
> 
>                     some minor typo corrections
> 
>                     Our counter-proposal is:
> 
>                       * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                       * there must be a vote along the previous lines -
>                     8 to succeed.
>                       * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                       * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second
>                     round between top two 
> 
>                       * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd
>                     round of leader
>                         against NOTA
>                       * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the
>                     seat open until we get
>                         our act together.
>                       *  then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and
>                     NCA  talk until we
>                         get our act together.
> 
>                     On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                     > Hi,
>                     >
>                     > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
>                     >
>                     > I guess we say:
>                     > - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
>                     > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>                     > parallel starting next week Monday
>                     > - Our counter-proposal is:
>                     >
>                     >   * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                     >   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>                     >   * as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                     >   * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>                     >   * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against
>                     >     NOTA
>                     >   * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we
>                     >     get our act together.
>                     >   *  then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we
>                     >     get our act together.
>                     >
>                     > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG.
>                     >
>                     > Best,
>                     >
>                     > Rafik
>                     >
>                     > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org>
>                     <mailto:avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org>>>:
>                     >
>                     >     Hi,
>                     >
>                     >     I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal
>                     >
>                     >     - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
>                     >
>                     >     - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to
>                     >     succeed.
>                     >
>                     >     - as many nominees as come forward in a week.
>                     >
>                     >     - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two
>                     >
>                     >     - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader
>                     >     against NOTA
>                     >
>                     >     - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our
>                     >     act together.
>                     >
>                     >     - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until
>                     >     we get
>                     >     our act together.
>                     >
>                     >     avri
>                     >
>                     >     On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>                     >     >
>                     >     > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or
>                     >     > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
>                     >     > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next
>                     >     week?
>                     >     >
>                     >     > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next
>                     >     week?  or
>                     >     > two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the
>                     >     CSG and
>                     >     > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
>                     >     > should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>                     >     >
>                     >     > In the interim start work on the process?
>                     >     >
>                     >     > Matthew
>                     >     >
>                     >     >
>                     >     > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                     >     >> Hi all,
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG
>                     >     quickly. at
>                     >     >> least covering the topic of nomination.
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >> Best,
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >> Rafik
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>                     >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>                     >     >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>                     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>:
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>     Hi Matt,
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this
>                     >     topic.
>                     >     >>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the
>                     >     process
>                     >     >>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>                     >     >>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for
>                     >     >>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we
>                     >     >>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press
>                     >     >>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are
>                     >     >>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>     Best,
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>     Rafik
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>                     >     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>                     >     >>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>                     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>>>:
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>         Thanks Rafik
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal
>                     >     with it
>                     >     >>         and we are running out of time.
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting,
>                     >     which
>                     >     >>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some general
>                     >     >>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>                     >     >>         selection process.  People voiced their views on different
>                     >     >>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>                     >     >>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>                     >     >>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>                     >     >>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in the
>                     >     >>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
>                     >     proposal
>                     >     >>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed
>                     >     to be
>                     >     >>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a
>                     >     process and
>                     >     >>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at
>                     >     >>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>         Matthew
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>                     >     >>>         Hi everyone,
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on
>                     >     board
>                     >     >>>         seat election.
>                     >     >>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what
>                     >     or not
>                     >     >>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended
>                     >     >>>         intersessional?
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points
>                     >     >>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far
>                     >     from our
>                     >     >>>         expectations.
>                     >     >>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it
>                     >     by end
>                     >     >>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>         Best,
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>         Rafik
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>                     >     >>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                     >     >>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
>                     >     >>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>                     >     >>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
>                     >     Selection Process
>                     >     >>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                     >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                     >     >>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                     >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>>
>                     >     >>>         Cc:
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             All,
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             We probably need a different mailing list to finish
>                     >     >>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a
>                     >     small
>                     >     >>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think
>                     >     this
>                     >     >>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides of the
>                     >     >>>             NCPH on it.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and we've
>                     >     >>>             already started the process without knowing what it is
>                     >     >>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures
>                     >     >>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the
>                     >     following
>                     >     >>>             for consideration:
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between
>                     >     CSG and
>                     >     >>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft
>                     >     process.
>                     >     >>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a
>                     >     >>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from
>                     >     >>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>                     >     >>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section
>                     >     >>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats
>                     >     >>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
>                     >     Bylaws), and
>                     >     >>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section
>                     >     11.3(f).
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go
>                     >     >>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21
>                     >     weeks
>                     >     >>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the
>                     >     airplane
>                     >     >>>             in the air.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>                     >     >>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any
>                     >     >>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>                     >     >>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done so, we
>                     >     >>>             should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP
>                     >     >>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>                     >     >>>             nomination period).
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process and
>                     >     >>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different
>                     >     when
>                     >     >>>             it comes to voting.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process
>                     >     agreed
>                     >     >>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>                     >     >>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process as
>                     >     >>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need to get
>                     >     >>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG to
>                     >     >>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>                     >     >>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between
>                     >     that and
>                     >     >>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to
>                     >     arrange a
>                     >     >>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball
>                     >     forward.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             Thanks for reading,
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             Greg
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got here, but
>                     >     >>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO
>                     >     Procedures
>                     >     >>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline
>                     >     >>>             for naming the Director was changed from one month to
>                     >     >>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to
>                     >     being
>                     >     >>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be
>                     >     updated in
>                     >     >>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>                     >     >>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this
>                     >     error.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>                     >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>                     >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>                     >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>                     >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>                     >     >>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                     >     >>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>>
>                     >     >>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>                     >     >>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board
>                     >     Selection Process
>                     >     >>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                     >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                     >     >>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                     >     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed
>                     >     >>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on the
>                     >     >>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House.
>                     >     >>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes
>                     >     >>>             from the CPH document.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>                     >     >>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but
>                     >     >>>             everyone has "edit"
>                     >     >>>             rights):
>                     >     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>                     >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >      <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>                     >     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>                     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board
>                     >     >>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before
>                     >     making it
>                     >     >>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of
>                     >     the IPC,
>                     >     >>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on
>                     >     >>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we have for
>                     >     >>>             this year.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             Thanks!
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams)
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             *Greg Shatan
>                     >     >>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>                     >     >>>             S: gsshatan
>                     >     >>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>                     >     <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>                     >     >>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>                     >     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>             _______________________________________________
>                     >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>                     >     >>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                     >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>                     >     >>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>                     >     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>                     <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>                     >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>
>                     >     >>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>                     >     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>                     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>
>                     >     >>>         _______________________________________________
>                     >     >>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>                     >     >>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                     <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>                     <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
>                     >     <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                     <mailto: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>
>                     >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                     >     >>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>                     >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>>
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >>         --
>                     >     >>         ------------
>                     >     >>         Matthew Shears
>                     >     >>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>                     >     >>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>                     >     >>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                     <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                     >     <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>                     >     >>
>                     >     >> _______________________________________________
>                     >     >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>                     >     >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                     <mailto: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>
>                     >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                     >     > --
>                     >     > ------------
>                     >     > Matthew Shears
>                     >     > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>                     >     > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>                     >     > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                     <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>                     >     >
>                     >     > _______________________________________________
>                     >     > NCSG-PC mailing list
>                     >     > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                     <mailto: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>
>                     >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                     >
>                     >
>                     >     ---
>                     >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>                     >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                     <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>                     <https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                     <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>>
>                     >
>                     >     _______________________________________________
>                     >     NCSG-PC mailing list
>                     >     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>                     <mailto: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>
>                     >     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>                     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>                     >
>                     >
> 
>                      
>                     ---
>                     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>                     antivirus software.
>                     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>                     <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>                      
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Mar 11 18:04:58 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 01:04:58 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Agenda for PC meeting / Sunday 12th March 17:00
	Copehangen
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmEa2bbzrVpnWY1TiCX_Z99FcYT=ps4ci=LExM=+ubNXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThm3wPY+j79etWyuAKScsEO4LSzHEcNw8eAksH5jsi_6PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmEa2bbzrVpnWY1TiCX_Z99FcYT=ps4ci=LExM=+ubNXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=+84_A_AHL6x2GcMDF_oVB91nBt=ekoFJJ5EkP+muYog@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all.

I am sending a reminder about the draft agenda for tomorrow meeting. Please
share your comments.

Best.

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: Mar 7, 2017 8:44 AM
Subject: Agenda for PC meeting / Sunday 12th March 17:00 Copehangen
To: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Cc:

Hi everyone,

as I shared in a previous email, we have to plan for our policy committee
session this Sunday.

as draft agenda and open for discussion and amendments:

1- Review of GNSO council agenda
     - Motions discussions/voting
2- Topics for discussions:
    - Board seat election: process and timeline
    - Ongoing PDPs: any reports from the Saturday sessions
    - Workstream 2: any reports from full-day meeting
    - meeting with Data Protection Commissioners prep (TBC)
    - Public consultation: any statement from NCSG
3- AOB

We should have action items to follow-up those discussions.

if we cannot cover all topics, we may meet informally during the week and
take notes of our discussions, sharing them in PC list for record. We also
have NCSG CD  and I would like to ask Tapani if we can cover remaining
topics in that day without jeopardizing other agenda topics.

Best,

Rafik

for reference I copied the Council agenda below:



*Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)*



1.1 - Roll Call



1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest



1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda



1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the
GNSO Operating Procedures:



Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 19 January 2017, posted on 10
February 2017.

Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 16 February 2017, will be
posted on 8 March 2017.





*Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)*



2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
topics, to include review of Projects List
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List
<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>





*Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins)*



*3.1 ? Confirmation of GNSO Co-Chair for the Cross Community Working Group
on New gTLD Auction Proceeds*



In November 2016, the GNSO Council had approved the Charter for the new
Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on New gTLD Auction Proceeds and
appointed Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO co-chair to the group in December
2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161215-1). On 9
February 2017, Jonathan Robinson informed the CCWG and the Council that he
will be stepping down as GNSO co-chair, and requested that the Council
appoint a successor as soon as is reasonably possible (
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-February/000080.html).
As directed by the Council following its meeting on 16 February, staff
issued a Call for Volunteers on 1 March (https://mm.icann.org/pipermai
l/council/2017-March/019785.html). Councilor Erika Mann responded to the
Call and volunteered her services (https://mm.icann.org/pipermai
l/council/2017-March/019786.html) Here the Council will discuss and, if
appropriate, approve Erika?s candidacy for appointment as the new GNSO
co-chair to this CCWG.



*Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE ? Approval of Charter for a New GNSO Standing
Selection Committee (15 minutes)*

On 13 December 2016, Councilors Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris circulated
for the Council?s consideration a draft document proposing a set of
criteria and a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to
future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the
ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to
appoint, nominate or endorse candidates (https://gnso.icann.org/en/dra
fts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf). Following further work on
the draft document by Susan, Ed and the Council leadership, a proposed
Charter to create a GNSO Standing Selection Committee that will conduct
future selections based on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented
process was circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019734.html) and
discussed at the Council meeting on 16 February. Here the Council is
expected to complete its discussions on the remaining open items regarding
the draft Charter, and vote on a motion to create the new GNSO Standing
Selection Committee.

If the new Committee is established, its initial tasks are expected to
include proposing a slate of GNSO nominees for the upcoming Registration
Directory Services and Accountability and Transparency Review Teams, as
well as possibly assisting with the proposed establishment of a Standing
Panel for Independent Review Processes (see Agenda Item 6, below).

4.1 ? Presentation of motion (James Bladel) https://community.
icann.org/x/lJvRAw

4.2 ? Council and community discussion

4.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)







*Item 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Updated Charter for the Cross Community
Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes)*



At its Public Meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India, on 7 November 2016,
the GNSO Council had approved a motion conditioning the future
participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization of the CCWG on
Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) upon a comprehensive review of the group?s
Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with the Framework of Uniform
Principles for CCWGs that had been adopted recently by the ccNSO and GNSO
Councils (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principle
s-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In its resolution, the GNSO Council had
noted that the CCWG-IG?s future work is expected to be subject to a clear
work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables, and had requested
that, by ICANN58, the CCWG-IG was to report on its findings, which report
may include a revised charter or a recommendation to reconstitute the group
under a new structure (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions -
20161107-3 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-3>).



Here the Council will receive an update and report from the CCWG-IG
co-chairs, and discuss next steps in relation to the GNSO?s continued
participation as a Chartering Organization of this CCWG.



5.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-IG co-chairs)



5.2 ? Council and community discussion



5.3 ? Next steps



*Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Activities of the CCWG-Accountability
Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (15 minutes)*



On 28 February 2017, the Independent Review Process Implementation
Oversight Team (IRP IOT) of the ongoing CCWG-Accountability informed all
ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) that SO/ACs
will shortly be expected to work with ICANN to establish a Standing Panel
for future IRPs brought under the revised ICANN Bylaws (
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019790.html) This is a
four-step process that needs to be completed in order for the
newly-constituted IRP under the revised ICANN Bylaws to be used. Here the
Council will receive an update from the GNSO?s participants in the IRP IOT,
and discuss next steps in relation to this request and any additional
actions that are expected to be forthcoming in the near term for the GNSO
Council and community.



6.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-Accountability IRT IOT representatives)



6.2 ? Council and community discussion



6.3 ? Next steps



*Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposed Council Request in relation to
Letter from Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (10 minutes)*

On 15 December 2016, the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) sent
a letter to the GNSO Council describing a number of privacy law
developments and how the IRT has considered them (see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf).
The letter noted that the IRT?s implementation plan has been published for
public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-imple
mentation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en) and that the IRT
does not currently expect the developments in question to affect the
timeline for transition to thick WHOIS. The Council discussed the letter at
its meeting on 19 January 2017, at which Councilors Erika Mann and Michele
Neylon volunteered to draft a possible response to the IRT from the Council
for Council consideration. On 2 February 2017, Councilor Erika Mann
circulated a draft Council request for an update on the legal review that
had been done previously (https://mm.icann.org/pipermai
l/council/2017-February/019729.html). Here the Council will continue its
discussion of the draft request with a view toward deciding on its further
actions on this topic, including whether and when to request the update,
and whether the scope of the request (if one is to be sent) should remain
unchanged from the previous legal review.

7.1 ? Status summary (Council Chairs and Erika Mann)

7.2 ? Council and community discussion

7.3 ? Next steps



*Item 8: JOINT DISCUSSION ? Meeting with ICANN?s Global Domains Division
(30 minutes)*



At previous ICANN Public Meetings, the GNSO Council and community had held
regular discussion sessions with senior staff from ICANN?s Global Domains
Division (GDD). This section of the Council?s Public Meeting at ICANN58 has
been added to allow the GNSO community to interact with GDD senior staff,
to discuss topics of current interest to the GNSO.



8.1 ? Introductions (Council Chairs and GDD senior staff)



8.2 ? Open discussion



*Item 9: OPEN MICROPHONE & ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170312/6d100fc8/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Sat Mar 11 18:11:45 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:11:45 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Agenda for PC meeting / Sunday 12th March
 17:00 Copehangen
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=+84_A_AHL6x2GcMDF_oVB91nBt=ekoFJJ5EkP+muYog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThm3wPY+j79etWyuAKScsEO4LSzHEcNw8eAksH5jsi_6PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmEa2bbzrVpnWY1TiCX_Z99FcYT=ps4ci=LExM=+ubNXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=+84_A_AHL6x2GcMDF_oVB91nBt=ekoFJJ5EkP+muYog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c6f38a63-b7af-1fdc-fad5-02e4899ab798@cdt.org>

Hi Rafik - for this meeting if we have time or perhaps JOBURG

I think - as the WS2 work starts to complete (hopefully) - that we need 
to have a discussion about the prioritization of policy work to ensure 
that we have as best coverage and engagement as possible - hopefully 
including some resource shift from WS2 to PDPs.

Matthew


On 11/03/2017 17:04, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I am sending a reminder about the draft agenda for tomorrow meeting. 
> Please share your comments.
>
> Best.
>
> Rafik
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> Date: Mar 7, 2017 8:44 AM
> Subject: Agenda for PC meeting / Sunday 12th March 17:00 Copehangen
> To: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
> Cc:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     as I shared in a previous email, we have to plan for our policy
>     committee session this Sunday.
>
>     as draft agenda and open for discussion and amendments:
>
>     1- Review of GNSO council agenda
>          - Motions discussions/voting
>     2- Topics for discussions:
>         - Board seat election: process and timeline
>         - Ongoing PDPs: any reports from the Saturday sessions
>         - Workstream 2: any reports from full-day meeting
>         - meeting with Data Protection Commissioners prep (TBC)
>         - Public consultation: any statement from NCSG
>     3- AOB
>
>     We should have action items to follow-up those discussions.
>
>     if we cannot cover all topics, we may meet informally during the
>     week and take notes of our discussions, sharing them in PC list
>     for record. We also have NCSG CD  and I would like to ask Tapani
>     if we can cover remaining topics in that day without jeopardizing
>     other agenda topics.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Rafik
>
>     for reference I copied the Council agenda below:
>
>     **
>
>     *Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins)*
>
>     1.1 - Roll Call
>
>     1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
>
>     1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>
>     1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings
>     per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
>
>     Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 19 January 2017,
>     posted on 10 February 2017.
>
>     Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 16 February 2017,
>     will be posted on 8 March 2017.
>
>     **
>
>     **
>
>     *Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins)*
>
>     2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key
>     themes / topics, to include review of Projects List
>     <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project>and Action Item List
>     <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>
>
>     **
>
>     **
>
>     *
>     *
>
>     *Item 3. Consent Agenda (10 mins)*
>
>     **
>
>     *3.1 ? Confirmation of GNSO Co-Chair for the Cross Community
>     Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds*
>
>     In November 2016, the GNSO Council had approved the Charter for
>     the new Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on New gTLD Auction
>     Proceeds and appointed Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO co-chair to
>     the group in December 2016
>     (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161215-1
>     <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161215-1>). On 9
>     February 2017, Jonathan Robinson informed the CCWG and the Council
>     that he will be stepping down as GNSO co-chair, and requested that
>     the Council appoint a successor as soon as is reasonably possible
>     (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-February/000080.html
>     <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-February/000080.html>).
>     As directed by the Council following its meeting on 16 February,
>     staff issued a Call for Volunteers on 1 March
>     (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019785.html
>     <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019785.html>).
>     Councilor Erika Mann responded to the Call and volunteered her
>     services
>     (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019786.html
>     <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019786.html>)
>     Here the Council will discuss and, if appropriate, approve Erika?s
>     candidacy for appointment as the new GNSO co-chair to this CCWG.
>
>     **
>
>     *Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE ? Approval of Charter for a New GNSO
>     Standing Selection Committee (15 minutes)*
>
>     On 13 December 2016, Councilors Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris
>     circulated for the Council?s consideration a draft document
>     proposing a set of criteria and a uniform process for the
>     selection of GNSO representatives to future Review Teams,
>     including for the various reviews mandated by the ICANN Bylaws,
>     and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to
>     appoint, nominate or endorse candidates
>     (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf
>     <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf>).
>     Following further work on the draft document by Susan, Ed and the
>     Council leadership, a proposed Charter to create a GNSO Standing
>     Selection Committee that will conduct future selections based on
>     agreed, uniform criteria and a documented process was circulated
>     to the Council on 6 February 2017
>     (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019734.html)
>     <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019734.html%29> and
>     discussed at the Council meeting on 16 February. Here the Council
>     is expected to complete its discussions on the remaining open
>     items regarding the draft Charter, and vote on a motion to create
>     the new GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>
>     If the new Committee is established, its initial tasks are
>     expected to include proposing a slate of GNSO nominees for the
>     upcoming Registration Directory Services and Accountability and
>     Transparency Review Teams, as well as possibly assisting with the
>     proposed establishment of a Standing Panel for Independent Review
>     Processes (see Agenda Item 6, below).
>
>     4.1 ? Presentation of motion (James Bladel)
>     https://community.icann.org/x/lJvRAw
>     <https://community.icann.org/x/lJvRAw>
>
>     4.2 ? Council and community discussion
>
>     4.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority)
>
>     **
>
>     **
>
>     **
>
>     *Item 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Updated Charter for the Cross
>     Community Working Group on Internet Governance (20 minutes)*
>
>     At its Public Meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India, on 7
>     November 2016, the GNSO Council had approved a motion conditioning
>     the future participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization
>     of the CCWG on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) upon a comprehensive
>     review of the group?s Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with
>     the Framework of Uniform Principles for CCWGs that had been
>     adopted recently by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils
>     (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf
>     <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf>).
>     In its resolution, the GNSO Council had noted that the CCWG-IG?s
>     future work is expected to be subject to a clear work plan, with
>     regular updates and clear deliverables, and had requested that, by
>     ICANN58, the CCWG-IG was to report on its findings, which report
>     may include a revised charter or a recommendation to reconstitute
>     the group under a new structure
>     (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions - 20161107-3
>     <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161107-3>).
>
>     Here the Council will receive an update and report from the
>     CCWG-IG co-chairs, and discuss next steps in relation to the
>     GNSO?s continued participation as a Chartering Organization of
>     this CCWG.
>
>     5.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-IG co-chairs)
>
>     5.2 ? Council and community discussion
>
>     5.3 ? Next steps
>
>     **
>
>     *Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Activities of the
>     CCWG-Accountability Independent Review Process Implementation
>     Oversight Team (15 minutes)*
>
>     On 28 February 2017, the Independent Review Process Implementation
>     Oversight Team (IRP IOT) of the ongoing CCWG-Accountability
>     informed all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory
>     Committees (SO/ACs) that SO/ACs will shortly be expected to work
>     with ICANN to establish a Standing Panel for future IRPs brought
>     under the revised ICANN Bylaws
>     (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019790.html
>     <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019790.html>)
>     This is a four-step process that needs to be completed in order
>     for the newly-constituted IRP under the revised ICANN Bylaws to be
>     used. Here the Council will receive an update from the GNSO?s
>     participants in the IRP IOT, and discuss next steps in relation to
>     this request and any additional actions that are expected to be
>     forthcoming in the near term for the GNSO Council and community.
>
>     6.1 ? Update and report (CCWG-Accountability IRT IOT representatives)
>
>     6.2 ? Council and community discussion
>
>     6.3 ? Next steps
>
>     **
>
>     *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposed Council Request in relation
>     to Letter from Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (10 minutes)*
>
>     On 15 December 2016, the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team
>     (IRT) sent a letter to the GNSO Council describing a number of
>     privacy law developments and how the IRT has considered them
>     (seehttps://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf
>     <https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf>).
>     The letter noted that the IRT?s implementation plan has been
>     published for public comment (see
>     https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en
>     <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en>)
>     and that the IRT does not currently expect the developments in
>     question to affect the timeline for transition to thick WHOIS. The
>     Council discussed the letter at its meeting on 19 January 2017, at
>     which Councilors Erika Mann and Michele Neylon volunteered to
>     draft a possible response to the IRT from the Council for Council
>     consideration. On 2 February 2017, Councilor Erika Mann circulated
>     a draft Council request for an update on the legal review that had
>     been done previously
>     (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019729.html
>     <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019729.html>).
>     Here the Council will continue its discussion of the draft request
>     with a view toward deciding on its further actions on this topic,
>     including whether and when to request the update, and whether the
>     scope of the request (if one is to be sent) should remain
>     unchanged from the previous legal review.
>
>     7.1 ? Status summary (Council Chairs and Erika Mann)
>
>     7.2 ? Council and community discussion
>
>     7.3 ? Next steps
>
>     **
>
>     *Item 8: JOINT DISCUSSION ? Meeting with ICANN?s Global Domains
>     Division (30 minutes)*
>
>     **
>
>     At previous ICANN Public Meetings, the GNSO Council and community
>     had held regular discussion sessions with senior staff from
>     ICANN?s Global Domains Division (GDD). This section of the
>     Council?s Public Meeting at ICANN58 has been added to allow the
>     GNSO community to interact with GDD senior staff, to discuss
>     topics of current interest to the GNSO.
>
>     8.1 ? Introductions (Council Chairs and GDD senior staff)
>
>     8.2 ? Open discussion
>
>     **
>
>     *Item 9: OPEN MICROPHONE & ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)*
>
>     **
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
------------
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/20170311/7a0d2947/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Mar 12 12:09:12 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 06:09:12 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Call for Public Comment on the Draft 2016 African
	Domain Name System Market Study
Message-ID: <zHhUkVrVLxBgsFYtB0FoDiIspTbPIaLxGSMfWfMiEm3tj0-5-k53zZDYJUI2Y0pimi6zFrAThnNXDUJspeB_qtZeyWCeGNIot9DpBCsxUDU=@ferdeline.com>

An opportunity for public comment.



- Ayden



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Daily Digest of ICANN.org
Local Time: 11 March 2017 11:30 PM
UTC Time: 11 March 2017 23:30
From: no-reply at icann.org
To: Ayden F?rdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com>



ICANN

Daily Digest of ICANN.org





News & Announcements


------


[Call for Public Comment on the Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study](http://icann.org/news/announcement-2017-03-11-en)




Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced a call for public comment on the draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study, which was commissioned in March 2016 and managed by the South African Communications Forum (SACF) for ICANN. The goal of the study is to identify and define the strengths and weaknesses in the African DNS industry ecosystem, and develop recommendations on how to advance the industry by bringing it closer to available opportunities. This study aims to document relevant data points and provide further analytical finding...
[Read more](http://icann.org/news/announcement-2017-03-11-en)



------


[BROWSE ALL NEWS](http://icann.org/news)



From the ICANN Blog


------


[Top 10 Things You Didn?t Know About Denmark](http://icann.org/news/blog/top-10-things-you-didn-t-know-about-denmark)




1. The Danish word hygge was rated one of the top 10 words of 2016. In fact, hygge ranked right behind Brexit in Collins Dictionary?s words of the year. Hygge refers to a feeling of togetherness and intimacy related to relaxing with family and friends. The best English translation is ?coziness.? During the long dark winters, the glow of candles, cozy blankets and warm drinks help to create hygge in Danish homes ? and help to explain why Danes are such happy people. 2. Placed end to end, the total number of Denmark?s famous LEGO bricks sold in just one year would circle...
[Read more](http://icann.org/news/blog/top-10-things-you-didn-t-know-about-denmark)



------


[BROWSE ALL BLOG ARTICLES](http://icann.org/news/blog)






This message was sent to ayden at ferdeline.com from:

ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


[Manage Your Subscription](http://icann.org/user/account_setting/edit?section=news)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170312/1eb01aeb/attachment.htm>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Mon Mar 13 20:13:06 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:13:06 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
Message-ID: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>

Hi everyone,
  
 When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws 
Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik 
reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
  
 Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to 
our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from 
staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to 
continue our work.
  
 No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
  
 Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania for 
a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important meeting 
on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off getting 
up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate 
because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of 
any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
  
 Thank you,
  
 Ed Morris
  
 - Yes, I support Stefania.
  
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170313/581a4437/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Mar 13 22:48:42 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:48:42 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
Message-ID: <20170313204842.e43sfd2g2zas4u2k@roller.tarvainen.info>

I seem to recall a number of people supporting Stefania
and no opposition nor any other volunteers.

In my part I'm happy to support her for the task.

Tapani



On Mar 13 14:13, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>   
>  When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws 
> Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik 
> reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
>   
>  Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to 
> our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from 
> staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to 
> continue our work.
>   
>  No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>   
>  Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania for 
> a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important meeting 
> on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off getting 
> up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate 
> because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of 
> any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
>   
>  Thank you,
>   
>  Ed Morris
>   
>  - Yes, I support Stefania.
>   
>   
> 


From egmorris1 at toast.net  Mon Mar 13 23:35:11 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:35:11 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <20170313204842.e43sfd2g2zas4u2k@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <20170313204842.e43sfd2g2zas4u2k@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <BED6B9F8-A65C-4181-941E-8F8F4B9D2DC6@toast.net>

Thanks Tapani.

Your memory mirrors mine. I'm hoping we can get this done sooner rather than later so we can confirm Stefi and notify the appropriate parties. We really need her strong voice on Wednesday.

Thanks,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Mar 2017, at 21:50, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> I seem to recall a number of people supporting Stefania
> and no opposition nor any other volunteers.
> 
> In my part I'm happy to support her for the task.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 13 14:13, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws 
>> Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik 
>> reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
>> 
>> Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to 
>> our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from 
>> staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to 
>> continue our work.
>> 
>> No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>> 
>> Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania for 
>> a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important meeting 
>> on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off getting 
>> up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate 
>> because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of 
>> any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Ed Morris
>> 
>> - Yes, I support Stefania.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From pileleji at ymca.gm  Mon Mar 13 23:37:22 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:37:22 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sqNbOEqEJLaonNjmMcq9_zihO8PhLMYTZxx__3LHvddg@mail.gmail.com>

100% + N support for Stephanie

Poncelet

On 13 March 2017 at 19:13, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws
> Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik
> reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
>
> Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to
> our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from
> staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to
> continue our work.
>
> No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>
> Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania for
> a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important meeting
> on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off getting
> up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate
> because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of
> any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ed Morris
>
> - Yes, I support Stefania.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170313/ef554589/attachment.htm>

From dgdorothydg at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 23:55:34 2017
From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:55:34 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH2xXE6isatpj3cwQqNFZ6xv78GS3+yKTyvbGGniWrDUJiOEyQ@mail.gmail.com>

Approved. I support Stefania doing so much hard work on behalf of us. Thanks

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws
> Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik
> reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
>
> Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to
> our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from
> staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to
> continue our work.
>
> No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>
> Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania for
> a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important meeting
> on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off getting
> up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate
> because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of
> any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ed Morris
>
> - Yes, I support Stefania.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170313/b0b2856f/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 14 01:14:10 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:14:10 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40sqNbOEqEJLaonNjmMcq9_zihO8PhLMYTZxx__3LHvddg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <CAEux40sqNbOEqEJLaonNjmMcq9_zihO8PhLMYTZxx__3LHvddg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e0de01e9-e5cc-ca1b-94e0-b11fc17b1e27@mail.utoronto.ca>

Of course, my support as well for Stefania (I thought I had already 
supported but here it is again....)

cheers Stephanie


On 2017-03-13 17:37, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
> 100% + N support for Stephanie
>
> Poncelet
>
> On 13 March 2017 at 19:13, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>     When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO
>     Bylaws Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role
>     but, as Rafik reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG
>      for the position.
>     Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a
>     response to our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions
>     and questions from staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again
>     tomorrow for a few hours to continue our work.
>     No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>     Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of
>     Stefania for a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a
>     very important meeting on Wednesday and we really need her. She's
>     working her rear end off getting up to date and it would be a real
>     loss if she wasn't able to participate because enough PC members
>     didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of any other
>     volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
>     Thank you,
>     Ed Morris
>     - Yes, I support Stefania.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> /www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>
> *
> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170313/12a3fcdf/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Tue Mar 14 01:46:32 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:46:32 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <e0de01e9-e5cc-ca1b-94e0-b11fc17b1e27@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <CAEux40sqNbOEqEJLaonNjmMcq9_zihO8PhLMYTZxx__3LHvddg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e0de01e9-e5cc-ca1b-94e0-b11fc17b1e27@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAJjnsDEUP54nKfJd98r34VxgTO_6yC=LWjXUR5o6Gp+7etmY8Q@mail.gmail.com>

Fully support Stefania!!!!! And thank for volunteering!

On 14 Mar 2017 12:14 a.m., "Stephanie Perrin" <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Of course, my support as well for Stefania (I thought I had already
> supported but here it is again....)
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
> On 2017-03-13 17:37, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
>
> 100% + N support for Stephanie
>
> Poncelet
>
> On 13 March 2017 at 19:13, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws
>> Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik
>> reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
>>
>> Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to
>> our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from
>> staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to
>> continue our work.
>>
>> No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>>
>> Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania
>> for a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important
>> meeting on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off
>> getting up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to
>> participate because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in
>> the absence of any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the
>> DT.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Ed Morris
>>
>> - Yes, I support Stefania.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170313/641abaf6/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar 14 01:54:27 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:54:27 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <CAJjnsDEUP54nKfJd98r34VxgTO_6yC=LWjXUR5o6Gp+7etmY8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <CAEux40sqNbOEqEJLaonNjmMcq9_zihO8PhLMYTZxx__3LHvddg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e0de01e9-e5cc-ca1b-94e0-b11fc17b1e27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAJjnsDEUP54nKfJd98r34VxgTO_6yC=LWjXUR5o6Gp+7etmY8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <uLeAvwRspPCRYYulAeORsR9kNPbcSb1o3fzhNIMYWmpIUD9UfXK6bfWaNMQ5XET17tk9JHaXeWJvODeOrokkQ1H3qJq6o7H7z_7pyHWVDYs=@ferdeline.com>

+1 Stefi

- Ayden



On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:46 am, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

Fully support Stefania!!!!! And thank for volunteering!

On 14 Mar 2017 12:14 a.m., "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:


Of course, my support as well for Stefania (I thought I had already supported but here it is again....)

cheers Stephanie


On 2017-03-13 17:37, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:


100% + N support for Stephanie
Poncelet

On 13 March 2017 at 19:13, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

Hi everyone,

When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG for the position.

Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to our work, 59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to continue our work.

No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.

Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania for a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important meeting on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off getting up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.

Thank you,

Ed Morris

- Yes, I support Stefania.


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





--




Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org
[www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm)
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org






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

______________________________ _________________
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/20170313/f1661b4d/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Tue Mar 14 01:56:26 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 23:56:26 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <e0de01e9-e5cc-ca1b-94e0-b11fc17b1e27@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <CAEux40sqNbOEqEJLaonNjmMcq9_zihO8PhLMYTZxx__3LHvddg@mail.gmail.com>,
 <e0de01e9-e5cc-ca1b-94e0-b11fc17b1e27@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <8C02DDF2-2585-45A5-AF43-91E4DBFE0A39@EUI.eu>

thanks folks! I will try to catch up and hopefully give a meaningful contribution. Best, stefi

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 14, 2017, at 00:14, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:


Of course, my support as well for Stefania (I thought I had already supported but here it is again....)

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-13 17:37, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
100% + N support for Stephanie

Poncelet

On 13 March 2017 at 19:13, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.

Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to continue our work.

No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.

Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania for a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important meeting on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off getting up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.

Thank you,

Ed Morris

- Yes, I support Stefania.



_______________________________________________
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




--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm>
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org>
www,insistglobal.com<http://www.itag.gm>
www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org>
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>







_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170313/49646582/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Mar 14 02:15:23 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 01:15:23 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <e0de01e9-e5cc-ca1b-94e0-b11fc17b1e27@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <CAEux40sqNbOEqEJLaonNjmMcq9_zihO8PhLMYTZxx__3LHvddg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e0de01e9-e5cc-ca1b-94e0-b11fc17b1e27@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <8cb28c95-c608-cec9-8d52-619ebbe776a5@cdt.org>

and mine!


On 14/03/2017 00:14, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Of course, my support as well for Stefania (I thought I had already 
> supported but here it is again....)
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
>
> On 2017-03-13 17:37, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
>> 100% + N support for Stephanie
>>
>> Poncelet
>>
>> On 13 March 2017 at 19:13, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi everyone,
>>     When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO
>>     Bylaws Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that
>>     role but, as Rafik reminded me today, was never endorsed by the
>>     NCSG  for the position.
>>     Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a
>>     response to our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions
>>     and questions from staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again
>>     tomorrow for a few hours to continue our work.
>>     No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>>     Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of
>>     Stefania for a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a
>>     very important meeting on Wednesday and we really need her. She's
>>     working her rear end off getting up to date and it would be a
>>     real loss if she wasn't able to participate because enough PC
>>     members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of any
>>     other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
>>     Thank you,
>>     Ed Morris
>>     - Yes, I support Stefania.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>> /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>> /www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
------------
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/20170314/a2139d1e/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Mar 14 09:46:18 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:46:18 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <BED6B9F8-A65C-4181-941E-8F8F4B9D2DC6@toast.net>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <20170313204842.e43sfd2g2zas4u2k@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <BED6B9F8-A65C-4181-941E-8F8F4B9D2DC6@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkcATc9a6OL=-qn3npTmKJb3Ttb_FRU2nC=-QPdSsEJ=A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

previously, there was only support from Ayden and Ed and call for
candidates was still going. I see now more endorsement from the rest of PC
members. with that, we can consider Stefania as appointed to Bylaws DT from
NCSG.
I will inform ICANN staff about the replacement.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-14 6:35 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Thanks Tapani.
>
> Your memory mirrors mine. I'm hoping we can get this done sooner rather
> than later so we can confirm Stefi and notify the appropriate parties. We
> really need her strong voice on Wednesday.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 13 Mar 2017, at 21:50, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> wrote:
> >
> > I seem to recall a number of people supporting Stefania
> > and no opposition nor any other volunteers.
> >
> > In my part I'm happy to support her for the task.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 13 14:13, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws
> >> Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as
> Rafik
> >> reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
> >>
> >> Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to
> >> our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from
> >> staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours
> to
> >> continue our work.
> >>
> >> No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
> >>
> >> Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania
> for
> >> a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important
> meeting
> >> on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off
> getting
> >> up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate
> >> because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the
> absence of
> >> any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Ed Morris
> >>
> >> - Yes, I support Stefania.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170314/a8b64487/attachment.htm>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Tue Mar 14 09:52:36 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:52:36 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkcATc9a6OL=-qn3npTmKJb3Ttb_FRU2nC=-QPdSsEJ=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <20170313204842.e43sfd2g2zas4u2k@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <BED6B9F8-A65C-4181-941E-8F8F4B9D2DC6@toast.net>
 <CAH5sThkcATc9a6OL=-qn3npTmKJb3Ttb_FRU2nC=-QPdSsEJ=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0A0C19E8-80CC-4B4B-9021-B0535C181D9D@toast.net>

Thanks Rafik.

Full support for always following proper procedure. Thanks for making sure we did so here.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 08:46, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> previously, there was only support from Ayden and Ed and call for candidates was still going. I see now more endorsement from the rest of PC members. with that, we can consider Stefania as appointed to Bylaws DT from NCSG.
> I will inform ICANN staff about the replacement.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik  
> 
> 2017-03-14 6:35 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>> Thanks Tapani.
>> 
>> Your memory mirrors mine. I'm hoping we can get this done sooner rather than later so we can confirm Stefi and notify the appropriate parties. We really need her strong voice on Wednesday.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> > On 13 Mar 2017, at 21:50, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>> >
>> > I seem to recall a number of people supporting Stefania
>> > and no opposition nor any other volunteers.
>> >
>> > In my part I'm happy to support her for the task.
>> >
>> > Tapani
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Mar 13 14:13, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >> When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws
>> >> Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as Rafik
>> >> reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
>> >>
>> >> Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response to
>> >> our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions from
>> >> staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours to
>> >> continue our work.
>> >>
>> >> No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>> >>
>> >> Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania for
>> >> a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important meeting
>> >> on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off getting
>> >> up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to participate
>> >> because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the absence of
>> >> any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >>
>> >> Ed Morris
>> >>
>> >> - Yes, I support Stefania.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NCSG-PC mailing list
>> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170314/d7be8ffc/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 14 10:01:44 2017
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:01:44 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Urgent: Appointment Needs To Be Made. Please respond.
In-Reply-To: <0A0C19E8-80CC-4B4B-9021-B0535C181D9D@toast.net>
References: <d3fb7609abb545c7ba3cbc7f5b879033@toast.net>
 <20170313204842.e43sfd2g2zas4u2k@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <BED6B9F8-A65C-4181-941E-8F8F4B9D2DC6@toast.net>
 <CAH5sThkcATc9a6OL=-qn3npTmKJb3Ttb_FRU2nC=-QPdSsEJ=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <0A0C19E8-80CC-4B4B-9021-B0535C181D9D@toast.net>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3Z0a8zHOsPmYzDpzKxZ0bg6kzjnzZXg5MeYbULAoYktQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1 Stefania

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Thanks Rafik.
>
> Full support for always following proper procedure. Thanks for making sure
> we did so here.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 14 Mar 2017, at 08:46, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> previously, there was only support from Ayden and Ed and call for
> candidates was still going. I see now more endorsement from the rest of PC
> members. with that, we can consider Stefania as appointed to Bylaws DT from
> NCSG.
> I will inform ICANN staff about the replacement.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-03-14 6:35 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
>
>> Thanks Tapani.
>>
>> Your memory mirrors mine. I'm hoping we can get this done sooner rather
>> than later so we can confirm Stefi and notify the appropriate parties. We
>> really need her strong voice on Wednesday.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On 13 Mar 2017, at 21:50, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I seem to recall a number of people supporting Stefania
>> > and no opposition nor any other volunteers.
>> >
>> > In my part I'm happy to support her for the task.
>> >
>> > Tapani
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Mar 13 14:13, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >> When Amr left us to join staff it created a vacancy on the GNSO Bylaws
>> >> Drafting Team. Stefania Milan volunteered to fill that role but, as
>> Rafik
>> >> reminded me today, was never endorsed by the NCSG  for the position.
>> >>
>> >> Stefania, Matt and myself spent two hours today working on a response
>> to
>> >> our work,  59 pages of detailed analysis, assumptions and questions
>> from
>> >> staff and ICANN Legal. We'll be meeting again tomorrow for a few hours
>> to
>> >> continue our work.
>> >>
>> >> No other NCSG member volunteered to replace Amr.
>> >>
>> >> Could folks please take a moment and signify your approval of Stefania
>> for
>> >> a spot on the GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team? We have a very important
>> meeting
>> >> on Wednesday and we really need her. She's working her rear end off
>> getting
>> >> up to date and it would be a real loss if she wasn't able to
>> participate
>> >> because enough PC members didn't signify their agreement, in the
>> absence of
>> >> any other volunteer, to having Stefania sub for Amr on the DT.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >>
>> >> Ed Morris
>> >>
>> >> - Yes, I support Stefania.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>


-- 

*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/20170314/6daebf1f/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Mar 14 11:43:58 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:43:58 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Info for Board candidate session later today
In-Reply-To: <e3622583-1915-81e4-fb30-677d48d84d14@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <e3622583-1915-81e4-fb30-677d48d84d14@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <4c0e1ad4-7262-cf9a-9f00-9972b8b96a93@cdt.org>

Hi all

Given the discussion slot with the Board candidates later today I 
thought it might be useful for me to provide the info below:

_LinkedIn profile_

www.linkedin.com/in/shearsmatthew

Current a consultant working with the Center for Democracy & Technology, 
the Internet Society and Global Partners Digital.

_Work at ICANN _

Engaged in ICANN and NCUC/NCSG since Q2 2014 with a particular focus on 
the transition and governance:

?Member and past VC of the NCSG PC

?Participant in the transition-related CCWGs on Stewardship and 
Accountability from their inception

?Participant in CCWG Accountability WS2 issues, including, largely, the 
FoI for the HR bylaw, as well as contributing to discussions on SO/AC 
accountability and jurisdiction.

?Participant in the CCWG Stewardship Implementation Oversight Task Force 
(IOTF)

?Member of the GNSO bylaws review DT; participant in the GNSO futures work

?Participant in the CCWG IG and contributor to the Charter review.

_Work at CDT_

https://cdt.org/?s&filter_author%5B%5D=20432

(The above leads you to blog posts/insights from my time with CDT)

Particular Internet governance focus areas: ICANN and IANA transition; 
WSIS review that culminated at the UNGA in December 2015; WCIT 2012, 
NETmundial, WTPF, IGFs, etc.

_Other_

Currently co-chair of the Freedom Online Coalition Working Group on ?An 
Internet Free and Secure? that developed recommendations on 
cybersecurity and human rights: https://freeandsecure.online/

Past public and private sector experience ? see LinkedIn profile above.

_Suitability of skills/background_

I believe that I have a set of skills and strengths that lend themselves 
well to this role, and particularly representing the NCPH.  I have, as 
you will see from my background, a balance of non-commercial and 
commercial experience and that provides the cross-stakeholder 
wherewithal to convey (and promote) the interests and key issues of the 
community to the Board.   My 4 years with CDT - which will end March 
31st - has also given me a great appreciation for and understanding of 
civil society concerns and priorities that have allowed me to 
participate in and contribute to the work and goals of NCUC/NCSG.   My 
policy and governance interests and skills (including "diplomacy" 
skills) also lend themselves to a Board role.

_Motivation_

Two main motivations.   After three years of transition and 
accountability related work I have the governance bug and the first of 
my two main motivations (and goal) is to contribute to ensuring that the 
new ICANN stays in mission and that the Board - very importantly - 
respects the roles and responsibilities of the community, particularly 
as they relate to policy.   Ensuring that the organization including the 
Board are supportive of the Empowered Community and other aspects of 
accountability that have been agreed as a result of the transition and 
the enhancing of ICANN's accountability is essential to the overall 
success of ICANN post transition.  I would see this as a key goal for my 
time on the Board should I be chosen to represent the community.

The second key motivation (and goal) is to work to better reflect the 
purpose(s) and interests of the community at the Board level. While I 
understand and respect the requirement that Directors have "the duty to 
act in what they reasonably believe are the best interests of ICANN and 
not as representatives of the .... Supporting Organization ... that 
nominated them..."  I see bringing the policy and operational concerns 
and interests to the Board as a whole - and as appropriate to the 
organization and CEO - as a core role for this Director position.   One 
means for doing so will be to seek positions on the Organizational 
Effectiveness and the Board Governance Committees.

My thanks for your support and if you have any questions don't hesitate.

Matthew




On 08/03/2017 06:48, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I would like to nominate Matthew Shears for the Board seat.  Matt has 
> indicated his willingness to serve, and has done great work on the 
> CCWG over the past year, which will put him in an excellent position 
> to convey our concerns and issues to the Board.  I believe that he may 
> be able to also do the impossible....muster support from the CPH.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
------------
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/20170314/094e89ac/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 14 18:21:44 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:21:44 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Canadian pharmacy association concerns over the CCT report
Message-ID: <ad37f53d-0710-99f7-cff3-3ea63378b0b9@mail.utoronto.ca>

THe pharmacy guys (Ron Andruff and Tim Smith,) sent me four 
recommendations from the CCT review that they are worried about in terms 
of shadow regulation.  I agree.  We are walking down the famous slippery 
slope.......

Stephanie P

*/
/*

*/Recommendation 1/*

Registrars and registries may acknowledge the ongoing problem of illegal 
online pharmacies and publicly support the work of organizations such as 
CSIP and the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies (ASOP) and companies 
involved in combatting the use of domain names for the illegal 
distribution of drugs and medicines by illegal online pharmacies.

*/Recommendation 2/*

When registries and registrars become aware of a suspected illegal 
pharmacy they may refer the domain to a third party provider that 
verifies the legitimacy of these websites.

*/Recommendation 3/*

After receiving adequate legal confirmation (pursuant to each 
organization?s own assessment of adequate legal confirmation) that a 
domain name hosts a website that is used to market and distribute drugs 
and medicines in violation of applicable laws, registrars and registries 
may take prompt action. Registries and registrars may take action on 
confirmed, illegal pharmacies up to and including suspension or deletion 
of the affected domain(s) in accordance with their internal procedures.

*/Recommendation 4/*

Registrars and registries also include on their website, contact 
information for an ?Abuse Contact? so that users can report suspected 
illegal websites for further investigation by a online pharmacy 
verification provider.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170314/987f0d13/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 14 20:05:35 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:05:35 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Canadian pharmacy association concerns over the CCT
 report
In-Reply-To: <ad37f53d-0710-99f7-cff3-3ea63378b0b9@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ad37f53d-0710-99f7-cff3-3ea63378b0b9@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <85d00adc-e342-5036-d1c9-62bed50a9780@mail.utoronto.ca>

more data needed....these recs are from Healthy Domains Initiative in 
response to the CCT.....sorry for any confusion, was in a hurry....

cheers SP


On 2017-03-14 12:21, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> THe pharmacy guys (Ron Andruff and Tim Smith,) sent me four 
> recommendations  from the CCT review that they are worried about in 
> terms of shadow regulation.  I agree.  We are walking down the famous 
> slippery slope.......
>
> Stephanie P
>
> */
> /*
>
> */Recommendation 1/*
>
> Registrars and registries may acknowledge the ongoing problem of 
> illegal online pharmacies and publicly support the work of 
> organizations such as CSIP and the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies 
> (ASOP) and companies involved in combatting the use of domain names 
> for the illegal distribution of drugs and medicines by illegal online 
> pharmacies.
>
> */Recommendation 2/*
>
> When registries and registrars become aware of a suspected illegal 
> pharmacy they may refer the domain to a third party provider that 
> verifies the legitimacy of these websites.
>
> */Recommendation 3/*
>
> After receiving adequate legal confirmation (pursuant to each 
> organization?s own assessment of adequate legal confirmation) that a 
> domain name hosts a website that is used to market and distribute 
> drugs and medicines in violation of applicable laws, registrars and 
> registries may take prompt action. Registries and registrars may take 
> action on confirmed, illegal pharmacies up to and including suspension 
> or deletion of the affected domain(s) in accordance with their 
> internal procedures.
>
> */Recommendation 4/*
>
> Registrars and registries also include on their website, contact 
> information for an ?Abuse Contact? so that users can report suspected 
> illegal websites for further investigation by a online pharmacy 
> verification provider.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170314/e9d5d5c6/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar 15 03:45:13 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:45:13 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
Message-ID: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>

Just a reminder, if we have questions re: FY18 budget they must be submitted by 19 March.

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170314/34f964e3/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Thu Mar 16 15:53:16 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:53:16 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
 Selection Committee
Message-ID: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.

Suggestions, volunteers?

Tapani

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----


Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
-          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
-          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
-          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
-          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
(gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

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


From pileleji at ymca.gm  Thu Mar 16 16:13:23 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:13:23 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tLgp+1NdQDim-T--q+d9j_h4zRO6tQryBT_AYiQyknZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Tapani,

I self nominate myself if its okay to do so.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 16 March 2017 at 14:53, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>
> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>
> Suggestions, volunteers?
>
> Tapani
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-
> selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https:/
> /urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.
> org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.
> pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_
> FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-
> JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4
> Fnvcy4&e=>.
>
> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> interested parties.
>
> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>
> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> Contracted Party House;
> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> Group; and,
> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>
> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>
> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> March at 16.00 UTC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika Konings
> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170316/6079b781/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu Mar 16 18:10:59 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:10:59 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <2f0610f9-2378-4f25-c910-c42943429dba@mail.utoronto.ca>

I would like to nominate Avri.  She has a ton of experience in 
evaluating candidates, and is going to be off council after this meeting 
so therefore has tons of time on her hands.:-)

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-03-16 09:53, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>
> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>
> Suggestions, volunteers?
>
> Tapani
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>
> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> interested parties.
>
> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>
> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>
> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>
> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> March at 16.00 UTC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika Konings
> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170316/0d5c3847/attachment.htm>

From avri at doria.org  Thu Mar 16 18:23:00 2017
From: avri at doria.org (avri@acm.org)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:23:00 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1752318537.1492.ncsg-pc@lists.ncsg.is>

Hi,
One issue I have is that I intend to put my name forward for ATRT. If this makes me disqualified for that, would need to decline.
Stephanie did ask about my willingness, but in a moment of weakness agreed before thinking it through.
ThanksAvri




Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message --------From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> Date: 3/16/17  17:10  (GMT+01:00) To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing Selection Committee 

    I would like to
          nominate Avri.? She has a ton of experience in evaluating
          candidates, and is going to be off council after this meeting
          so therefore has tons of time on her hands.:-)

        
    Stephanie Perrin

    
    

    On 2017-03-16 09:53, Tapani Tarvainen
      wrote:

    
    
      Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.

Suggestions, volunteers?

Tapani

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----


Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
-          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
-          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
-          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
-          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
(gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

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

    
    

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170316/13a4be63/attachment.htm>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Fri Mar 17 03:16:12 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 21:16:12 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <2fd467a5983b40cf8993bf973bd94945@toast.net>

Hi Tapani,
  
 As one of the two principle authors of the SSC I would like to volunteer to serve as one of the three members on the initial committee from the NCSG. My fellow lead on this, Susan Kawaguchi of the Business Constituency, is a candidate for one of the upcoming Review Teams that the SSC will be creating recommendations for and will not be serving on the SSC. As the SSC is a work in progress, with the Motion creating it requiring the SSC to report back to Council on it's utility, I do believe it would be advantageous to Council if one of it's creators was on the team to sort problems and clarify intentions.
  
 I should also note that I have a track record of successfully placing NCSG members on Review Teams. In the recent selection for the SSR2 team, in which I was one of two GNSO Councillors chosen by the GNSO Chair to join the Leadership team in recommending candidates, the NCSG had two of the thirteen candidates for the positions. Both NCSG candidates were among the seven candidates selected for submission to the SOAC leadership and one of the NCSG candidates was amongst the three automatically chosen to represent the NCSG in a guaranteed slot. The rules would not permit a better outcome. 
  
 An additional concern, noted in the Motion approving the SSC Charter, is the possible effect of items considered by the Drafting Team (DT)  on the GNSO Bylaws on the SSC. My membership on the DT will provide a link between the SSC and the DT and allow for an easy transfer of concerns and suggestions for modification of the SSC by the DT.
  
 Thank you for your consideration.
  
 Ed Morris
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 1:53 PM
To: "NCSG PC" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing Selection Committee   
Dear all, See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC. Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time. Suggestions, volunteers? Tapani ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> ----- Dear All, On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>. The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates, 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all interested parties. The membership structure of the SSC is as follows: The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows: - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House; - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency; - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and, - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20 April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council consideration by its June 2017 meeting. Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30 March at 16.00 UTC. Best regards, Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170316/b6df6326/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Mar 17 09:05:50 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:05:50 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>

hi all,

I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with ICANN nomcom
when I was NCUC representative there.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:

> Dear all,
>
> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>
> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>
> Suggestions, volunteers?
>
> Tapani
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-
> selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https:/
> /urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.
> org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.
> pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_
> FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-
> JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4
> Fnvcy4&e=>.
>
> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> interested parties.
>
> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>
> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> Contracted Party House;
> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> Group; and,
> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>
> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>
> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> March at 16.00 UTC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika Konings
> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170317/4486bbc2/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 17 17:10:14 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:10:14 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Canadian pharmacy association concerns over the CCT
	report
In-Reply-To: <85d00adc-e342-5036-d1c9-62bed50a9780@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <ad37f53d-0710-99f7-cff3-3ea63378b0b9@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <85d00adc-e342-5036-d1c9-62bed50a9780@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <XCe9szz2ZCo5KkWw1aIKwowsKBH_MZO0aNW1mdTfQVkN9zOo4ZgaXItv9eYGSsSpQ2i4Jp9mGDEziu4fhSr4eUFTxiRNA4TcvRGEvZ6klC8=@ferdeline.com>

I'm not sure if it's just my computer, or the PDF that has been uploaded (and I am, I suppose, insinuating that it is the PDF...) but I am not able to copy and paste the CCT recommendations from the PDF [uploaded to the ICANN website](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-summary-recommendations-07mar17-en.pdf).

I'm hoping this is just an error, so I have emailed the ICANN staffer listed on the public comment page and asked if she can email me the recommendations in a Word document, as it would not be fun having to manually type up the 50 recommendations.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Canadian pharmacy association concerns over the CCT report
Local Time: 14 March 2017 7:05 PM
UTC Time: 14 March 2017 18:05
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

more data needed....these recs are from Healthy Domains Initiative in response to the CCT.....sorry for any confusion, was in a hurry....

cheers SP

On 2017-03-14 12:21, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

THe pharmacy guys (Ron Andruff and Tim Smith,) sent me four recommendations from the CCT review that they are worried about in terms of shadow regulation. I agree. We are walking down the famous slippery slope.......

Stephanie P

Recommendation 1

Registrars and registries may acknowledge the ongoing problem of illegal online pharmacies and publicly support the work of organizations such as CSIP and the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies (ASOP) and companies involved in combatting the use of domain names for the illegal distribution of drugs and medicines by illegal online pharmacies.

Recommendation 2

When registries and registrars become aware of a suspected illegal pharmacy they may refer the domain to a third party provider that verifies the legitimacy of these websites.

Recommendation 3

After receiving adequate legal confirmation (pursuant to each organization?s own assessment of adequate legal confirmation) that a domain name hosts a website that is used to market and distribute drugs and medicines in violation of applicable laws, registrars and registries may take prompt action. Registries and registrars may take action on confirmed, illegal pharmacies up to and including suspension or deletion of the affected domain(s) in accordance with their internal procedures.

Recommendation 4

Registrars and registries also include on their website, contact information for an ?Abuse Contact? so that users can report suspected illegal websites for further investigation by a online pharmacy verification provider.

_______________________________________________
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/20170317/1e05bc98/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Mar 18 19:49:28 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:49:28 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
In-Reply-To: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>
References: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <Uy1dVxa9DuQUx3-5Cyd_gxNH1phaAwn275uxiD794SKTWcF5pt1SF4GLZjcr2rl1a4LHeq3Kg6jQgL1AFNOzQ65k6l7xdKVfEsZk6z3dbDE=@ferdeline.com>

The deadline for this is tomorrow (for what it is worth, I think it is a very unreasonable deadline when the core documents have been on the ICANN website for less than a fortnight, and some appendices have not yet been uploaded at all for us to review), but it is what it is. Does anyone have any questions regarding the FY18 budget that they think we need answers to? I will draft up a few questions seeking clarification regarding the allocation of resources between SO/ACs but other ideas are warmly welcomed...

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Budget questions
Local Time: 15 March 2017 1:45 AM
UTC Time: 15 March 2017 01:45
From: icann at ferdeline.com
To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Just a reminder, if we have questions re: FY18 budget they must be submitted by 19 March.

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170318/3adf86ae/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Sat Mar 18 23:03:57 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 21:03:57 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
In-Reply-To: <Uy1dVxa9DuQUx3-5Cyd_gxNH1phaAwn275uxiD794SKTWcF5pt1SF4GLZjcr2rl1a4LHeq3Kg6jQgL1AFNOzQ65k6l7xdKVfEsZk6z3dbDE=@ferdeline.com>
References: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>,
 <Uy1dVxa9DuQUx3-5Cyd_gxNH1phaAwn275uxiD794SKTWcF5pt1SF4GLZjcr2rl1a4LHeq3Kg6jQgL1AFNOzQ65k6l7xdKVfEsZk6z3dbDE=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <93FCE047-2906-40BA-99CB-89609C0A1AA1@EUI.eu>

any chance to ask for an extension?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 18, 2017, at 17:50, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> The deadline for this is tomorrow (for what it is worth, I think it is a very unreasonable deadline when the core documents have been on the ICANN website for less than a fortnight, and some appendices have not yet been uploaded at all for us to review), but it is what it is. Does anyone have any questions regarding the FY18 budget that they think we need answers to? I will draft up a few questions seeking clarification regarding the allocation of resources between SO/ACs but other ideas are warmly welcomed...
>
> - Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Budget questions
>> Local Time: 15 March 2017 1:45 AM
>> UTC Time: 15 March 2017 01:45
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Just a reminder, if we have questions re: FY18 budget they must be submitted by 19 March.
>>
>> Ayden
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Mar 19 18:51:00 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:51:00 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
In-Reply-To: <93FCE047-2906-40BA-99CB-89609C0A1AA1@EUI.eu>
References: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>,
 <Uy1dVxa9DuQUx3-5Cyd_gxNH1phaAwn275uxiD794SKTWcF5pt1SF4GLZjcr2rl1a4LHeq3Kg6jQgL1AFNOzQ65k6l7xdKVfEsZk6z3dbDE=@ferdeline.com>
 <93FCE047-2906-40BA-99CB-89609C0A1AA1@EUI.eu>
Message-ID: <OCeQHaqJt5fLuG43JuxyfG79lrhLpiyX7B_nCLQwZyVS_76ODpaEpsuUIho_Xv9QoKSS8MWWnHtaD4jX37DMW3IWqKFjST_gvpsiQCb0KkM=@ferdeline.com>

Unless there are any objections received on this list today, I will email the following message through to the Finance department in a few hours time, and see what they say:

In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the deadline of 19 March 2017 to submit questions in relation to the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. The NCSG will endeavour to provide questions seeking clarification by 25 March 2017.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
Local Time: 18 March 2017 9:03 PM
UTC Time: 18 March 2017 21:03
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

any chance to ask for an extension?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 18, 2017, at 17:50, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> The deadline for this is tomorrow (for what it is worth, I think it is a very unreasonable deadline when the core documents have been on the ICANN website for less than a fortnight, and some appendices have not yet been uploaded at all for us to review), but it is what it is. Does anyone have any questions regarding the FY18 budget that they think we need answers to? I will draft up a few questions seeking clarification regarding the allocation of resources between SO/ACs but other ideas are warmly welcomed...
>
> - Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Budget questions
>> Local Time: 15 March 2017 1:45 AM
>> UTC Time: 15 March 2017 01:45
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Just a reminder, if we have questions re: FY18 budget they must be submitted by 19 March.
>>
>> Ayden
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170319/a9fb07bf/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Sun Mar 19 19:44:12 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:44:12 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
In-Reply-To: <OCeQHaqJt5fLuG43JuxyfG79lrhLpiyX7B_nCLQwZyVS_76ODpaEpsuUIho_Xv9QoKSS8MWWnHtaD4jX37DMW3IWqKFjST_gvpsiQCb0KkM=@ferdeline.com>
References: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>,
 <Uy1dVxa9DuQUx3-5Cyd_gxNH1phaAwn275uxiD794SKTWcF5pt1SF4GLZjcr2rl1a4LHeq3Kg6jQgL1AFNOzQ65k6l7xdKVfEsZk6z3dbDE=@ferdeline.com>
 <93FCE047-2906-40BA-99CB-89609C0A1AA1@EUI.eu>,
 <OCeQHaqJt5fLuG43JuxyfG79lrhLpiyX7B_nCLQwZyVS_76ODpaEpsuUIho_Xv9QoKSS8MWWnHtaD4jX37DMW3IWqKFjST_gvpsiQCb0KkM=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <A9AE16B2-5FF2-4F55-AAA6-64EECC901051@EUI.eu>

+1 Ayden. thanks for taking care of this.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 19, 2017, at 17:56, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:


Unless there are any objections received on this list today, I will email the following message through to the Finance department in a few hours time, and see what they say:

In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the deadline of 19 March 2017 to submit questions in relation to the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. The NCSG will endeavour to provide questions seeking clarification by 25 March 2017.

- Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
Local Time: 18 March 2017 9:03 PM
UTC Time: 18 March 2017 21:03
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu<mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>

any chance to ask for an extension?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 18, 2017, at 17:50, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>
> The deadline for this is tomorrow (for what it is worth, I think it is a very unreasonable deadline when the core documents have been on the ICANN website for less than a fortnight, and some appendices have not yet been uploaded at all for us to review), but it is what it is. Does anyone have any questions regarding the FY18 budget that they think we need answers to? I will draft up a few questions seeking clarification regarding the allocation of resources between SO/ACs but other ideas are warmly welcomed...
>
> - Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Budget questions
>> Local Time: 15 March 2017 1:45 AM
>> UTC Time: 15 March 2017 01:45
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>> Just a reminder, if we have questions re: FY18 budget they must be submitted by 19 March.
>>
>> Ayden
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170319/58941e18/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Mon Mar 20 01:09:42 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:09:42 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
In-Reply-To: <OCeQHaqJt5fLuG43JuxyfG79lrhLpiyX7B_nCLQwZyVS_76ODpaEpsuUIho_Xv9QoKSS8MWWnHtaD4jX37DMW3IWqKFjST_gvpsiQCb0KkM=@ferdeline.com>
References: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>
 <Uy1dVxa9DuQUx3-5Cyd_gxNH1phaAwn275uxiD794SKTWcF5pt1SF4GLZjcr2rl1a4LHeq3Kg6jQgL1AFNOzQ65k6l7xdKVfEsZk6z3dbDE=@ferdeline.com>
 <93FCE047-2906-40BA-99CB-89609C0A1AA1@EUI.eu>
 <OCeQHaqJt5fLuG43JuxyfG79lrhLpiyX7B_nCLQwZyVS_76ODpaEpsuUIho_Xv9QoKSS8MWWnHtaD4jX37DMW3IWqKFjST_gvpsiQCb0KkM=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAJjnsDG_X3VHmTXCV1vJoSQQRPtke0mDw8A3XK_jVrjTDt+6SA@mail.gmail.com>

I expressly say I have no objections. +2 ayden


On 19 Mar 2017 17:51, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Unless there are any objections received on this list today, I will email
> the following message through to the Finance department in a few hours
> time, and see what they say:
> *In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the deadline of 19 March 2017 to
> submit questions in relation to the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. The
> NCSG will endeavour to provide questions seeking clarification by 25 March
> 2017.*
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
> Local Time: 18 March 2017 9:03 PM
> UTC Time: 18 March 2017 21:03
> From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> any chance to ask for an extension?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 18, 2017, at 17:50, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> >
> > The deadline for this is tomorrow (for what it is worth, I think it is a
> very unreasonable deadline when the core documents have been on the ICANN
> website for less than a fortnight, and some appendices have not yet been
> uploaded at all for us to review), but it is what it is. Does anyone have
> any questions regarding the FY18 budget that they think we need answers to?
> I will draft up a few questions seeking clarification regarding the
> allocation of resources between SO/ACs but other ideas are warmly
> welcomed...
> >
> > - Ayden
> >
> >
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Budget questions
> >> Local Time: 15 March 2017 1:45 AM
> >> UTC Time: 15 March 2017 01:45
> >> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> >> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>
> >> Just a reminder, if we have questions re: FY18 budget they must be
> submitted by 19 March.
> >>
> >> Ayden
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170319/6c01fb29/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Mar 20 03:15:53 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:15:53 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
In-Reply-To: <CAJjnsDG_X3VHmTXCV1vJoSQQRPtke0mDw8A3XK_jVrjTDt+6SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>
 <Uy1dVxa9DuQUx3-5Cyd_gxNH1phaAwn275uxiD794SKTWcF5pt1SF4GLZjcr2rl1a4LHeq3Kg6jQgL1AFNOzQ65k6l7xdKVfEsZk6z3dbDE=@ferdeline.com>
 <93FCE047-2906-40BA-99CB-89609C0A1AA1@EUI.eu>
 <OCeQHaqJt5fLuG43JuxyfG79lrhLpiyX7B_nCLQwZyVS_76ODpaEpsuUIho_Xv9QoKSS8MWWnHtaD4jX37DMW3IWqKFjST_gvpsiQCb0KkM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAJjnsDG_X3VHmTXCV1vJoSQQRPtke0mDw8A3XK_jVrjTDt+6SA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50da3373-d2e1-3706-003e-15aebac53dce@mail.utoronto.ca>

ditto.  Seems very sensible.

stephanie


On 2017-03-19 19:09, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
> I expressly say I have no objections. +2 ayden
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2017 17:51, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com 
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>
>     Unless there are any objections received on this list today, I
>     will email the following message through to the Finance department
>     in a few hours time, and see what they say:
>
>     /In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial
>     Stakeholder Group (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the
>     deadline of 19 March 2017 to submit questions in relation to the
>     FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. The NCSG will endeavour to provide
>     questions seeking clarification by 25 March 2017./
>
>     - Ayden
>
>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
>>     Local Time: 18 March 2017 9:03 PM
>>     UTC Time: 18 March 2017 21:03
>>     From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
>>     To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>>     any chance to ask for an extension?
>>
>>     Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>     > On Mar 18, 2017, at 17:50, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     > The deadline for this is tomorrow (for what it is worth, I
>>     think it is a very unreasonable deadline when the core documents
>>     have been on the ICANN website for less than a fortnight, and
>>     some appendices have not yet been uploaded at all for us to
>>     review), but it is what it is. Does anyone have any questions
>>     regarding the FY18 budget that they think we need answers to? I
>>     will draft up a few questions seeking clarification regarding the
>>     allocation of resources between SO/ACs but other ideas are warmly
>>     welcomed...
>>     >
>>     > - Ayden
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >> -------- Original Message --------
>>     >> Subject: Budget questions
>>     >> Local Time: 15 March 2017 1:45 AM
>>     >> UTC Time: 15 March 2017 01:45
>>     >> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>     >> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>     >>
>>     >> Just a reminder, if we have questions re: FY18 budget they
>>     must be submitted by 19 March.
>>     >>
>>     >> Ayden
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > 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>
>>
>>     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 <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/20170319/e9944a00/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Mon Mar 20 10:49:28 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 08:49:28 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
In-Reply-To: <50da3373-d2e1-3706-003e-15aebac53dce@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <hUoKrsyksx9PBx1BRw4pRBS3gYMiZpKgZ8j5JAi1Kf0FBCBDv59l7AdLBo0yjnr9YrWD5FwRxHL3LaH5zN2kA0qA_ZUVjt0UudFJ6ZoSqCs=@ferdeline.com>
 <Uy1dVxa9DuQUx3-5Cyd_gxNH1phaAwn275uxiD794SKTWcF5pt1SF4GLZjcr2rl1a4LHeq3Kg6jQgL1AFNOzQ65k6l7xdKVfEsZk6z3dbDE=@ferdeline.com>
 <93FCE047-2906-40BA-99CB-89609C0A1AA1@EUI.eu>
 <OCeQHaqJt5fLuG43JuxyfG79lrhLpiyX7B_nCLQwZyVS_76ODpaEpsuUIho_Xv9QoKSS8MWWnHtaD4jX37DMW3IWqKFjST_gvpsiQCb0KkM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAJjnsDG_X3VHmTXCV1vJoSQQRPtke0mDw8A3XK_jVrjTDt+6SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <50da3373-d2e1-3706-003e-15aebac53dce@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <078a54a1-94cf-b700-24c1-47e8f7eaa6a5@cdt.org>

Agree!  Thanks Ayden.


On 20/03/2017 01:15, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> ditto.  Seems very sensible.
>
> stephanie
>
>
> On 2017-03-19 19:09, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>> I expressly say I have no objections. +2 ayden
>>
>>
>> On 19 Mar 2017 17:51, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com 
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Unless there are any objections received on this list today, I
>>     will email the following message through to the Finance
>>     department in a few hours time, and see what they say:
>>
>>     /In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial
>>     Stakeholder Group (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the
>>     deadline of 19 March 2017 to submit questions in relation to the
>>     FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. The NCSG will endeavour to
>>     provide questions seeking clarification by 25 March 2017./
>>
>>     - Ayden
>>
>>
>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Budget questions
>>>     Local Time: 18 March 2017 9:03 PM
>>>     UTC Time: 18 March 2017 21:03
>>>     From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
>>>     To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>
>>>     any chance to ask for an extension?
>>>
>>>     Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>     > On Mar 18, 2017, at 17:50, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>     <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > The deadline for this is tomorrow (for what it is worth, I
>>>     think it is a very unreasonable deadline when the core documents
>>>     have been on the ICANN website for less than a fortnight, and
>>>     some appendices have not yet been uploaded at all for us to
>>>     review), but it is what it is. Does anyone have any questions
>>>     regarding the FY18 budget that they think we need answers to? I
>>>     will draft up a few questions seeking clarification regarding
>>>     the allocation of resources between SO/ACs but other ideas are
>>>     warmly welcomed...
>>>     >
>>>     > - Ayden
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >> -------- Original Message --------
>>>     >> Subject: Budget questions
>>>     >> Local Time: 15 March 2017 1:45 AM
>>>     >> UTC Time: 15 March 2017 01:45
>>>     >> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>     >> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>     <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Just a reminder, if we have questions re: FY18 budget they
>>>     must be submitted by 19 March.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Ayden
>>>     >
>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>     > 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>
>>>
>>>     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 <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
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
------------
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/20170320/8ce5a2a8/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Mon Mar 20 18:06:33 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:06:33 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,
I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.

Best,
Martin Silva

On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> hi all,
>
> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>
>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>
>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>
>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>> interested parties.
>>
>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>
>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>> Contracted Party House;
>> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>> Group; and,
>> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>
>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>
>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marika Konings
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170320/04bf21f3/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Mar 20 18:22:54 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:22:54 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>

Thank you Martin.

That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:

Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.

There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
nominate someone, but not much.

Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.

That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
more candidates show up.

Tapani


On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com) wrote:

> Dear all,
> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
> 
> Best,
> Martin Silva
> 
> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > hi all,
> >
> > I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> > I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> > ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> >>
> >> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> >>
> >> Suggestions, volunteers?
> >>
> >> Tapani
> >>
> >> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> >> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> >> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
> >> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
> >> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
> >> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
> >> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
> >> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
> >> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> >> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> >>
> >> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> >> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> >> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> >> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> >> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> >> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> >> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> >> interested parties.
> >>
> >> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> >>
> >> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> >> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> >> Contracted Party House;
> >> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> >> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> >> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> >> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> >> Group; and,
> >> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> >> appointees to the GNSO Council.
> >>
> >> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> >> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> >> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> >> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> >> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> >> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> >> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> >>
> >> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> >> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> >> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
> >> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> >> March at 16.00 UTC.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Marika Konings
> >> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
> >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>
> >> ----- End forwarded message -----


From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Mar 20 19:05:26 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:05:26 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
	Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>

An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?

I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?

Thanks,
Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Thank you Martin.

That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:

Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.

There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
nominate someone, but not much.

Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.

That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
more candidates show up.

Tapani

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com) wrote:

> Dear all,
> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>
> Best,
> Martin Silva
>
> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi all,
> >
> > I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> > I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> > ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> >>
> >> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> >>
> >> Suggestions, volunteers?
> >>
> >> Tapani
> >>
> >> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> >> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> >> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
> >> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
> >> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
> >> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
> >> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
> >> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
> >> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> >> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> >>
> >> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> >> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> >> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> >> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> >> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> >> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> >> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> >> interested parties.
> >>
> >> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> >>
> >> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> >> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> >> Contracted Party House;
> >> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> >> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> >> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> >> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> >> Group; and,
> >> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> >> appointees to the GNSO Council.
> >>
> >> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> >> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> >> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> >> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> >> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> >> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> >> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> >>
> >> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> >> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> >> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
> >> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> >> March at 16.00 UTC.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Marika Konings
> >> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
> >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>
> >> ----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170320/82379b58/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Mar 20 20:27:48 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:27:48 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I support extending the call to NCSG wider list to get more candidates and
see if we can get more people putting their names and volunteer. I will be
happy with more new folks to get involved in such process.

Since 3 of current candidates are members of PC  I think we should recuse
ourselves and not participate in the selection process for appointing to
SSC.

Best,


Rafik


On Mar 20, 2017 6:05 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few days
away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they are
considering putting their name forward. I will communicate this internal
deadline to them. Might it be worth considering sending a call for
nominations to the general NCSG list?

I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to the NCUC
or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more nominations for the
three slots, who is responsible for selecting our representatives, and how
will the candidates be assessed?

Thanks,
Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
Standing Selection Committee
Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Thank you Martin.

That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:

Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.

There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
nominate someone, but not much.

Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.

That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
more candidates show up.

Tapani


On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva Valent (
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com) wrote:

> Dear all,
> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>
> Best,
> Martin Silva
>
> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi all,
> >
> > I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> > I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> > ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> >>
> >> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> >>
> >> Suggestions, volunteers?
> >>
> >> Tapani
> >>
> >> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> >> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> >> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
> >> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
> >> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
> >> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
> >> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
> >> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
> >> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> >> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> >>
> >> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> >> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> >> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> >> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> >> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> >> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> >> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> >> interested parties.
> >>
> >> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> >>
> >> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> >> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> >> Contracted Party House;
> >> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> >> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> >> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> >> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> >> Group; and,
> >> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> >> appointees to the GNSO Council.
> >>
> >> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> >> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> >> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> >> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> >> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> >> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> >> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> >>
> >> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> >> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> >> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
> >> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> >> March at 16.00 UTC.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Marika Konings
> >> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
> >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>
> >> ----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170321/ac32d86e/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Mar 20 20:47:20 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:47:20 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think this is an excellent idea, because this is a job that people can 
do even if they have not been thoroughly immersed in the policy issues 
and day to day work of ICANN committees.  We need to find a way to even 
out the workload at ICANN, and attract people to get directly involved 
for activities that are limited in scope.  This is one such activity, 
there are not going to be a ton of selection processes.

As for reviewing the framework for this committee (which Ed and Susan 
Kawaguchi worked on), that committee will separately have the task of 
reviewing the efficiency and fairness of the process they devised, so it 
is not really necessary for them to sit on it. I think we can safely 
bring in new people, and really if the process is a good one, new people 
will be in the best position to test that.

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-03-20 14:27, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I support extending the call to NCSG wider list to get more candidates 
> and see if we can get more people putting their names and volunteer. I 
> will be happy with more new folks to get involved in such process.
>
> Since 3 of current candidates are members of PC  I think we should 
> recuse ourselves and not participate in the selection process for 
> appointing to SSC.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2017 6:05 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com 
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>
>     An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few
>     days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they
>     are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate
>     this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering
>     sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
>
>     I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to
>     the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more
>     nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting
>     our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Ayden
>
>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members -
>>     GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>     Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
>>     UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
>>     From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>>     To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>>     Thank you Martin.
>>
>>     That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
>>     three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
>>
>>     Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
>>
>>     There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
>>     nominate someone, but not much.
>>
>>     Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
>>     internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
>>
>>     That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
>>     more candidates show up.
>>
>>     Tapani
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva
>>     Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>)
>>     wrote:
>>
>>     > Dear all,
>>     > I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is
>>     been a long
>>     > time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>     >
>>     > Best,
>>     > Martin Silva
>>     >
>>     > On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     > > hi all,
>>     > >
>>     > > I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>     > > I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>     > > ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>     > >
>>     > > Best Regards,
>>     > >
>>     > > Rafik
>>     > >
>>     > > 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>>     > >
>>     > >> Dear all,
>>     > >>
>>     > >> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Tapani
>>     > >>
>>     > >> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>>     > >> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>>     <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>>     > >>
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Dear All,
>>     > >>
>>     > >> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>     > >> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>     > >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
>>     <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->
>>     > >> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org
>>     <http://gnso.icann.org>]<https://urldefense.
>>     > >> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
>>     <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>
>>     > >> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
>>     > >> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>>     > >> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>>     > >> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
>>     > >> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>     > >>
>>     > >> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>     where
>>     > >> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
>>     to the
>>     > >> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>     such as
>>     > >> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>     Empowered
>>     > >> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>     applicants/candidates,
>>     > >> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>     recommendations for
>>     > >> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
>>     to all
>>     > >> interested parties.
>>     > >>
>>     > >> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>     > >>
>>     > >> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>     follows:
>>     > >> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>     > >> Contracted Party House;
>>     > >> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>     > >> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and
>>     the Internet
>>     > >> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>     > >> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>     > >> Group; and,
>>     > >> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>     > >> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>     > >>
>>     > >> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>     > >> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>     Directory
>>     > >> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
>>     by its 20
>>     > >> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
>>     the SSC
>>     > >> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
>>     the GNSO
>>     > >> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>     > >> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>     member(s) to
>>     > >> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>     > >> (gnso-secs at icann.org
>>     <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org
>>     <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
>>     > >> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>     Thursday 30
>>     > >> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Best regards,
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Marika Konings
>>     > >> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>     Corporation
>>     > >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>     > >>
>>     > >> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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 <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/20170320/a058c4a7/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Mar 20 20:57:59 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:57:59 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <20170320185759.nxdjvgy7wq52bbsf@tarvainen.info>

Hi Ayden,

First to your second point: there're indeed three slots for NCSG, but
originally it was proposed one per constituency. The argument that won
us the third slot was that we have members who belong to neither as
well as many who belong to both constituencies. It could have been one
per constituency plus one non-constituency-tied slot for NCSG as well,
and I think it was mainly due to lack of time that the decision was
made to leave it up to the NCSG to pick three as a SG.

With that history, I think we should give each constituency at least
one slot in any case (as long as they have a volunteer, and both do).

As for calling for volunteers on the -discuss list, I'm not sure it'd
be necessary, as the nature of the job is such that it's hardly
suitable for newcomers - while there's no formal requirement, I tend
to think councillors and PC members should be preferred. And time is
short. But you are welcome to spread the word in whichever way you
want, of course.

As to who decides, generally the Policy Committee is responsible for
NCSG appointments. In this case we could even let each constituency
formally pick theirs and leave only the 3rd to be decided by the PC,
but if we can agree that there should be a representative from each
constituency, I think it'd be fine to let the PC choose all three.

As for how candidates would be assessed, we have no time to set up
proper formal criteria. As per above, I would suggest
(1) at least one per constituency;
(2) preference given to councillors, PC members and former councillors;
(3) look at the council decision for necessary qualifications.

But in the end we'll just have to discuss alternatives and if
necessary vote within the PC.

Tapani

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:05:26PM -0400, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:

> An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
> 
> I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ayden
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
> Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
> UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> 
> Thank you Martin.
> 
> That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
> three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
> 
> Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
> 
> There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
> nominate someone, but not much.
> 
> Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
> internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
> 
> That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
> more candidates show up.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > Dear all,
> > I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
> > time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
> >
> > Best,
> > Martin Silva
> >
> > On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > hi all,
> > >
> > > I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> > > I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> > > ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > > 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
> > >
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> > >>
> > >> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> > >>
> > >> Suggestions, volunteers?
> > >>
> > >> Tapani
> > >>
> > >> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> > >> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dear All,
> > >>
> > >> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> > >> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> > >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
> > >> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
> > >> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
> > >> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
> > >> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
> > >> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
> > >> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> > >> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> > >>
> > >> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> > >> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> > >> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> > >> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> > >> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> > >> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> > >> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> > >> interested parties.
> > >>
> > >> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> > >>
> > >> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> > >> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> > >> Contracted Party House;
> > >> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> > >> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> > >> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> > >> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> > >> Group; and,
> > >> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> > >> appointees to the GNSO Council.
> > >>
> > >> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> > >> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> > >> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> > >> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> > >> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> > >> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> > >> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> > >>
> > >> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> > >> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> > >> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
> > >> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> > >> March at 16.00 UTC.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> Marika Konings
> > >> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
> > >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> > >>
> > >> ----- End forwarded message -----


From robin at ipjustice.org  Mon Mar 20 21:27:06 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:27:06 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
	Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170320185759.nxdjvgy7wq52bbsf@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170320185759.nxdjvgy7wq52bbsf@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <66211B1C-3B2B-4F7E-8F64-332C067FE250@ipjustice.org>

This is a decision of the NCSG PC.  It is a matter before the NCSG PC.  I suggest we allow the NCSG PC to handle this as has been its practice and pursuant to the PC Chair?s guidance.  

I would not be in favor of turning NCSG decisions over to constituencies as suggested below.  The SG and C have separate roles and responsibilities and this proposal muddies those waters in dangerous and slippery ways.

Thanks,
Robin


> On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ayden,
> 
> First to your second point: there're indeed three slots for NCSG, but
> originally it was proposed one per constituency. The argument that won
> us the third slot was that we have members who belong to neither as
> well as many who belong to both constituencies. It could have been one
> per constituency plus one non-constituency-tied slot for NCSG as well,
> and I think it was mainly due to lack of time that the decision was
> made to leave it up to the NCSG to pick three as a SG.
> 
> With that history, I think we should give each constituency at least
> one slot in any case (as long as they have a volunteer, and both do).
> 
> As for calling for volunteers on the -discuss list, I'm not sure it'd
> be necessary, as the nature of the job is such that it's hardly
> suitable for newcomers - while there's no formal requirement, I tend
> to think councillors and PC members should be preferred. And time is
> short. But you are welcome to spread the word in whichever way you
> want, of course.
> 
> As to who decides, generally the Policy Committee is responsible for
> NCSG appointments. In this case we could even let each constituency
> formally pick theirs and leave only the 3rd to be decided by the PC,
> but if we can agree that there should be a representative from each
> constituency, I think it'd be fine to let the PC choose all three.
> 
> As for how candidates would be assessed, we have no time to set up
> proper formal criteria. As per above, I would suggest
> (1) at least one per constituency;
> (2) preference given to councillors, PC members and former councillors;
> (3) look at the council decision for necessary qualifications.
> 
> But in the end we'll just have to discuss alternatives and if
> necessary vote within the PC.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:05:26PM -0400, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
> 
>> An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
>> 
>> I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ayden
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>> Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
>> UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
>> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>> 
>> Thank you Martin.
>> 
>> That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
>> three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
>> 
>> Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
>> 
>> There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
>> nominate someone, but not much.
>> 
>> Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
>> internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
>> 
>> That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
>> more candidates show up.
>> 
>> Tapani
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com) wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
>>> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Martin Silva
>>> 
>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
>>>>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
>>>>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
>>>>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>>>>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>>>>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
>>>>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
>>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
>>>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Mar 20 21:33:00 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:33:00 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <66211B1C-3B2B-4F7E-8F64-332C067FE250@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170320185759.nxdjvgy7wq52bbsf@tarvainen.info>
 <66211B1C-3B2B-4F7E-8F64-332C067FE250@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <355fb95d-31d2-a614-0de1-cbcc1cac7422@mail.utoronto.ca>

I was the councillor who stuck her hand up and insisted on one for NCSG 
non allied.  I did this for reasons of parity, to ensure that we 
maintained the equilibrium with the commercial side of the house, who 
wanted three because they knew they would have a fight....check the 
transcript of the informal GNSO meeting, it is now available.  However, 
that is quite separate from having each constituency decide.  We can 
have a mixed group of NCSG members, who volunteer from the list, to 
decide the candidates, ensuring that there is one from each group.

I would be pleased to understand why councillors and executives have to 
make this decision, as I take the opposite view....there are lots of our 
members with experience in evaluating candidates, who could do this 
job.  We don't have to burden EC members who are already overstretched.

cheers Stephanie.


On 2017-03-20 15:27, Robin Gross wrote:
> This is a decision of the NCSG PC.  It is a matter before the NCSG PC.  I suggest we allow the NCSG PC to handle this as has been its practice and pursuant to the PC Chair?s guidance.
>
> I would not be in favor of turning NCSG decisions over to constituencies as suggested below.  The SG and C have separate roles and responsibilities and this proposal muddies those waters in dangerous and slippery ways.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> First to your second point: there're indeed three slots for NCSG, but
>> originally it was proposed one per constituency. The argument that won
>> us the third slot was that we have members who belong to neither as
>> well as many who belong to both constituencies. It could have been one
>> per constituency plus one non-constituency-tied slot for NCSG as well,
>> and I think it was mainly due to lack of time that the decision was
>> made to leave it up to the NCSG to pick three as a SG.
>>
>> With that history, I think we should give each constituency at least
>> one slot in any case (as long as they have a volunteer, and both do).
>>
>> As for calling for volunteers on the -discuss list, I'm not sure it'd
>> be necessary, as the nature of the job is such that it's hardly
>> suitable for newcomers - while there's no formal requirement, I tend
>> to think councillors and PC members should be preferred. And time is
>> short. But you are welcome to spread the word in whichever way you
>> want, of course.
>>
>> As to who decides, generally the Policy Committee is responsible for
>> NCSG appointments. In this case we could even let each constituency
>> formally pick theirs and leave only the 3rd to be decided by the PC,
>> but if we can agree that there should be a representative from each
>> constituency, I think it'd be fine to let the PC choose all three.
>>
>> As for how candidates would be assessed, we have no time to set up
>> proper formal criteria. As per above, I would suggest
>> (1) at least one per constituency;
>> (2) preference given to councillors, PC members and former councillors;
>> (3) look at the council decision for necessary qualifications.
>>
>> But in the end we'll just have to discuss alternatives and if
>> necessary vote within the PC.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:05:26PM -0400, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
>>
>>> An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
>>>
>>> I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>> Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
>>> UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
>>> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> Thank you Martin.
>>>
>>> That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
>>> three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
>>>
>>> Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
>>>
>>> There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
>>> nominate someone, but not much.
>>>
>>> Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
>>> internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
>>>
>>> That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
>>> more candidates show up.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
>>>> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Martin Silva
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>>> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>>>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
>>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
>>>>>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
>>>>>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
>>>>>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>>>>>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>>>>>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
>>>>>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
>>>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
>>>>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170320/420df816/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Mar 20 21:33:26 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:33:26 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>

Hi Stephanie,

While I agree with the general point about need of more people to
share the workload, I do *not* think this is something easy and
lightweight and safe and suitable for newcomers.

There are *a lot* of new appointments coming with lots of candidates
to assess, it would be very useful to be familiar with the types of
working groups &c to understand what kind of candidates are best.
This will be hard, ungrateful work with no perks, and I don't want to
appoint people who'll stop showing up after they realize how hard it is.

But three PC members suggesting a wider call for volunteers is enough
to persuade me, I will send out a call for volunteers to ncsg-discuss.

Tapani

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:47:20PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> I think this is an excellent idea, because this is a job that people can do
> even if they have not been thoroughly immersed in the policy issues and day
> to day work of ICANN committees.  We need to find a way to even out the
> workload at ICANN, and attract people to get directly involved for
> activities that are limited in scope.  This is one such activity, there are
> not going to be a ton of selection processes.
> 
> As for reviewing the framework for this committee (which Ed and Susan
> Kawaguchi worked on), that committee will separately have the task of
> reviewing the efficiency and fairness of the process they devised, so it is
> not really necessary for them to sit on it. I think we can safely bring in
> new people, and really if the process is a good one, new people will be in
> the best position to test that.
> 
> Stephanie Perrin
> 
> 
> On 2017-03-20 14:27, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I support extending the call to NCSG wider list to get more candidates
> > and see if we can get more people putting their names and volunteer. I
> > will be happy with more new folks to get involved in such process.
> > 
> > Since 3 of current candidates are members of PC  I think we should
> > recuse ourselves and not participate in the selection process for
> > appointing to SSC.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > 
> > Rafik
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 20, 2017 6:05 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com
> > <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
> > 
> >     An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few
> >     days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they
> >     are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate
> >     this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering
> >     sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
> > 
> >     I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to
> >     the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more
> >     nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting
> >     our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
> > 
> >     Thanks,
> >     Ayden
> > 
> > 
> > >     -------- Original Message --------
> > >     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members -
> > >     GNSO Standing Selection Committee
> > >     Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
> > >     UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
> > >     From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> > >     To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> > > 
> > >     Thank you Martin.
> > > 
> > >     That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
> > >     three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
> > > 
> > >     Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
> > > 
> > >     There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
> > >     nominate someone, but not much.
> > > 
> > >     Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
> > >     internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
> > > 
> > >     That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
> > >     more candidates show up.
> > > 
> > >     Tapani
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva
> > >     Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>)
> > >     wrote:
> > > 
> > >     > Dear all,
> > >     > I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is
> > >     been a long
> > >     > time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
> > >     >
> > >     > Best,
> > >     > Martin Silva
> > >     >
> > >     > On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > >     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >     >
> > >     > > hi all,
> > >     > >
> > >     > > I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> > >     > > I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> > >     > > ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> > >     > >
> > >     > > Best Regards,
> > >     > >
> > >     > > Rafik
> > >     > >
> > >     > > 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
> > >     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
> > >     > >
> > >     > >> Dear all,
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> Suggestions, volunteers?
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> Tapani
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> > >     > >> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
> > >     <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> Dear All,
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> > >     > >> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> > >     > >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
> > >     <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->
> > >     > >> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org
> > >     <http://gnso.icann.org>]<https://urldefense.
> > >     > >> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
> > >     <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>
> > >     > >> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
> > >     > >> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
> > >     > >> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
> > >     > >> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> > >     > >> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
> > >     where
> > >     > >> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
> > >     to the
> > >     > >> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
> > >     such as
> > >     > >> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
> > >     Empowered
> > >     > >> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
> > >     applicants/candidates,
> > >     > >> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
> > >     recommendations for
> > >     > >> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
> > >     to all
> > >     > >> interested parties.
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
> > >     follows:
> > >     > >> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> > >     > >> Contracted Party House;
> > >     > >> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> > >     > >> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and
> > >     the Internet
> > >     > >> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> > >     > >> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> > >     > >> Group; and,
> > >     > >> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> > >     > >> appointees to the GNSO Council.
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> > >     > >> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
> > >     Directory
> > >     > >> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
> > >     by its 20
> > >     > >> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
> > >     the SSC
> > >     > >> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
> > >     the GNSO
> > >     > >> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> > >     > >> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
> > >     member(s) to
> > >     > >> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> > >     > >> (gnso-secs at icann.org
> > >     <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org
> > >     <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
> > >     > >> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
> > >     Thursday 30
> > >     > >> March at 16.00 UTC.
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> Best regards,
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> Marika Konings
> > >     > >> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
> > >     Corporation
> > >     > >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> ----- End forwarded message -----


From robin at ipjustice.org  Mon Mar 20 21:36:06 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:36:06 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
	Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <E54F16B5-7821-4731-872B-305AD3FA2097@ipjustice.org>

Rafik is the PC Chair.  I don?t think it is appropriate to attempt to circumvent his role and judgment on this PC appointment issue.

Robin

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stephanie,
> 
> While I agree with the general point about need of more people to
> share the workload, I do *not* think this is something easy and
> lightweight and safe and suitable for newcomers.
> 
> There are *a lot* of new appointments coming with lots of candidates
> to assess, it would be very useful to be familiar with the types of
> working groups &c to understand what kind of candidates are best.
> This will be hard, ungrateful work with no perks, and I don't want to
> appoint people who'll stop showing up after they realize how hard it is.
> 
> But three PC members suggesting a wider call for volunteers is enough
> to persuade me, I will send out a call for volunteers to ncsg-discuss.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:47:20PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>) wrote:
> 
>> I think this is an excellent idea, because this is a job that people can do
>> even if they have not been thoroughly immersed in the policy issues and day
>> to day work of ICANN committees.  We need to find a way to even out the
>> workload at ICANN, and attract people to get directly involved for
>> activities that are limited in scope.  This is one such activity, there are
>> not going to be a ton of selection processes.
>> 
>> As for reviewing the framework for this committee (which Ed and Susan
>> Kawaguchi worked on), that committee will separately have the task of
>> reviewing the efficiency and fairness of the process they devised, so it is
>> not really necessary for them to sit on it. I think we can safely bring in
>> new people, and really if the process is a good one, new people will be in
>> the best position to test that.
>> 
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> 
>> 
>> On 2017-03-20 14:27, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I support extending the call to NCSG wider list to get more candidates
>>> and see if we can get more people putting their names and volunteer. I
>>> will be happy with more new folks to get involved in such process.
>>> 
>>> Since 3 of current candidates are members of PC  I think we should
>>> recuse ourselves and not participate in the selection process for
>>> appointing to SSC.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 20, 2017 6:05 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com
>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few
>>>    days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they
>>>    are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate
>>>    this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering
>>>    sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
>>> 
>>>    I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to
>>>    the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more
>>>    nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting
>>>    our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
>>> 
>>>    Thanks,
>>>    Ayden
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>    -------- Original Message --------
>>>>    Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members -
>>>>    GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>>>    Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
>>>>    UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
>>>>    From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
>>>>    To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>> 
>>>>    Thank you Martin.
>>>> 
>>>>    That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
>>>>    three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
>>>> 
>>>>    Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
>>>> 
>>>>    There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
>>>>    nominate someone, but not much.
>>>> 
>>>>    Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
>>>>    internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
>>>> 
>>>>    That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
>>>>    more candidates show up.
>>>> 
>>>>    Tapani
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva
>>>>    Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>)
>>>>    wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is
>>>>    been a long
>>>>> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Martin Silva
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>>>> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>    <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>>>>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>>>>    <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>> -----
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->
>>>>    <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->>
>>>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>
>>>>    <http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>>]<https://urldefense <https://urldefense/>.
>>>>>>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>
>>>>    <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>>
>>>>>>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
>>>>>>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>>>>>>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>>>>>>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
>>>>>>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>>>    where
>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
>>>>    to the
>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>>>    such as
>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>>    Empowered
>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>    applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>    recommendations for
>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
>>>>    to all
>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>>    follows:
>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and
>>>>    the Internet
>>>>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>>    Directory
>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
>>>>    by its 20
>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
>>>>    the SSC
>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
>>>>    the GNSO
>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>    member(s) to
>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>>>    <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>>>    <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>)> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>>>    Thursday 30
>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>    Corporation
>>>>>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170320/872eec97/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Mar 20 21:48:04 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:48:04 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <E54F16B5-7821-4731-872B-305AD3FA2097@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>
 <E54F16B5-7821-4731-872B-305AD3FA2097@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170320194804.j2masrtgvkowpnnl@tarvainen.info>

Hi Robin,

Yes, Rafik is PC Chair, but he is also running for the position, and
he just recused himself from the process. And as you may noticed I
accepted his judgement on the call for volunteers.

If we had a Vice Chair in the PC I would be only too happy to stay
out, but we don't. So I assume it falls on me as the general
all-purpose fallback executive. If the PC thinks otherwise, I will not
object to any consensus decision that let's me off the hook. :-)

Tapani

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:36:06PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> Rafik is the PC Chair.  I don?t think it is appropriate to attempt to circumvent his role and judgment on this PC appointment issue.
> 
> Robin
> 
> > On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Stephanie,
> > 
> > While I agree with the general point about need of more people to
> > share the workload, I do *not* think this is something easy and
> > lightweight and safe and suitable for newcomers.
> > 
> > There are *a lot* of new appointments coming with lots of candidates
> > to assess, it would be very useful to be familiar with the types of
> > working groups &c to understand what kind of candidates are best.
> > This will be hard, ungrateful work with no perks, and I don't want to
> > appoint people who'll stop showing up after they realize how hard it is.
> > 
> > But three PC members suggesting a wider call for volunteers is enough
> > to persuade me, I will send out a call for volunteers to ncsg-discuss.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:47:20PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>) wrote:
> > 
> >> I think this is an excellent idea, because this is a job that people can do
> >> even if they have not been thoroughly immersed in the policy issues and day
> >> to day work of ICANN committees.  We need to find a way to even out the
> >> workload at ICANN, and attract people to get directly involved for
> >> activities that are limited in scope.  This is one such activity, there are
> >> not going to be a ton of selection processes.
> >> 
> >> As for reviewing the framework for this committee (which Ed and Susan
> >> Kawaguchi worked on), that committee will separately have the task of
> >> reviewing the efficiency and fairness of the process they devised, so it is
> >> not really necessary for them to sit on it. I think we can safely bring in
> >> new people, and really if the process is a good one, new people will be in
> >> the best position to test that.
> >> 
> >> Stephanie Perrin
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 2017-03-20 14:27, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> I support extending the call to NCSG wider list to get more candidates
> >>> and see if we can get more people putting their names and volunteer. I
> >>> will be happy with more new folks to get involved in such process.
> >>> 
> >>> Since 3 of current candidates are members of PC  I think we should
> >>> recuse ourselves and not participate in the selection process for
> >>> appointing to SSC.
> >>> 
> >>> Best,
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Rafik
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Mar 20, 2017 6:05 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com
> >>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>    An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few
> >>>    days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they
> >>>    are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate
> >>>    this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering
> >>>    sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
> >>> 
> >>>    I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to
> >>>    the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more
> >>>    nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting
> >>>    our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
> >>> 
> >>>    Thanks,
> >>>    Ayden
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>>    -------- Original Message --------
> >>>>    Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members -
> >>>>    GNSO Standing Selection Committee
> >>>>    Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
> >>>>    UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
> >>>>    From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
> >>>>    To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>    Thank you Martin.
> >>>> 
> >>>>    That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
> >>>>    three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
> >>>> 
> >>>>    Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
> >>>> 
> >>>>    There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
> >>>>    nominate someone, but not much.
> >>>> 
> >>>>    Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
> >>>>    internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
> >>>> 
> >>>>    That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
> >>>>    more candidates show up.
> >>>> 
> >>>>    Tapani
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>    On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva
> >>>>    Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>)
> >>>>    wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is
> >>>>    been a long
> >>>>> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Martin Silva
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >>>>    <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> hi all,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> >>>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> >>>>>> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Best Regards,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>    <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>>:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> >>>>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> >>>>    <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>> -----
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Dear All,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> >>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> >>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->
> >>>>    <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->>
> >>>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>
> >>>>    <http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>>]<https://urldefense <https://urldefense/>.
> >>>>>>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>
> >>>>    <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>>
> >>>>>>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
> >>>>>>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
> >>>>>>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
> >>>>>>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> >>>>>>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
> >>>>    where
> >>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
> >>>>    to the
> >>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
> >>>>    such as
> >>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
> >>>>    Empowered
> >>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
> >>>>    applicants/candidates,
> >>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
> >>>>    recommendations for
> >>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
> >>>>    to all
> >>>>>>> interested parties.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
> >>>>    follows:
> >>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> >>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
> >>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> >>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and
> >>>>    the Internet
> >>>>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> >>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> >>>>>>> Group; and,
> >>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> >>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> >>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
> >>>>    Directory
> >>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
> >>>>    by its 20
> >>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
> >>>>    the SSC
> >>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
> >>>>    the GNSO
> >>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> >>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
> >>>>    member(s) to
> >>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> >>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> >>>>    <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> >>>>    <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>)> by 27 March at the
> >>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
> >>>>    Thursday 30
> >>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Marika Konings
> >>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
> >>>>    Corporation
> >>>>>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>


From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Mar 20 21:50:33 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:50:33 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
In-Reply-To: <ef6eb7a0e67645ca9658a67a5ce3c35a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <0_l8LaXgd-lCa3qM0AwrpdxXBgY2KISPatFfn3cjDFcMDFXUtbwxgeevHgAgbN-GTXl4XoNHzKllcPW_ScXqPYXTQ4gxhI05J8edeAzOm30=@ferdeline.com>
 <ef6eb7a0e67645ca9658a67a5ce3c35a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <L5ac52BhdhlS0FlEugmZ_BMhnaQWSUXoQ2LE0gUW5f21RQTvbBBmdrhBlNmBve6Fa3L00pxBLUGxE1Ec6REhw-ek0v559_3-IM-oPq47TRA=@ferdeline.com>

Our request for an extension until Friday to submit questions relating to the FY-18 budget has been granted.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
Local Time: 20 March 2017 7:37 PM
UTC Time: 20 March 2017 19:37
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
planning at icann.org <planning at icann.org>

Dear Ayden F?rdeline,

We will extend the date for questions seeking clarification, as requested. We have updated the dates on the Public Comment web page and I will send a message to the community-finance at icann.org list in a few minutes.

Kind regards,

Leo

From: planning-bounces at icann.org [mailto:planning-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 11:30 AM
To: planning at icann.org
Subject: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget

In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the deadline of 19 March 2017 to submit questions in relation to the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. The NCSG will endeavour to provide questions seeking clarification regarding line items by 25 March 2017.

Ayden F?rdeline

[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline[linkedin.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_ferdeline&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=3kO12rHf5gUWpTfRRZOw4KeQft_v6KJmL1lhxXH_-2M&s=uohIuaWNF11kdSeHvgNlR4LI70dIaKseEoSBPqQGCJE&e=)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170320/bcb63fb4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170320/bcb63fb4/attachment.bin>

From avri at apc.org  Mon Mar 20 21:54:11 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:54:11 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <3d29d53e-c0be-6707-73d9-f1f50832d472@apc.org>

Hi,

Just to confirm that as grateful as I am for Stephanie's nomination, I
am not making myself available for this.

avri


On 20-Mar-17 12:22, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Thank you Martin.
>
> That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
> three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
>
> Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
>
> There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
> nominate someone, but not much.
>
> Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
> internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
>
> That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
> more candidates show up.
>
> Tapani
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
>> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>
>> Best,
>> Martin Silva
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>
>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>>
>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
>>>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
>>>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
>>>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>>>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>>>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
>>>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>> Group; and,
>>>> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
>>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> 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 robin at ipjustice.org  Mon Mar 20 21:54:49 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:54:49 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
	Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170320194804.j2masrtgvkowpnnl@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>
 <E54F16B5-7821-4731-872B-305AD3FA2097@ipjustice.org>
 <20170320194804.j2masrtgvkowpnnl@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <98F918D5-4829-4EC8-8EEB-73E2199F3B71@ipjustice.org>

While I appreciate the attempt to jump into the void, under the NCSG Charter, the NCSG Chair is the *only* person specifically excluded from filling the role of the NCSG PC Chair.

(See NCSG Charter 2.5.3 on NCSG PC Chair ?The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role?.)

So what I think this situation means, is that the PC had better figure out how it wants to handle this asap (with those in the running recused from decision).  Here is a chance for us to fill a gap in our processes by either getting a vice-chair fast, or specifying some other means to make this decision.  But it will be up to the PC to make that decision.

Thanks,
Robin



> On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> Yes, Rafik is PC Chair, but he is also running for the position, and
> he just recused himself from the process. And as you may noticed I
> accepted his judgement on the call for volunteers.
> 
> If we had a Vice Chair in the PC I would be only too happy to stay
> out, but we don't. So I assume it falls on me as the general
> all-purpose fallback executive. If the PC thinks otherwise, I will not
> object to any consensus decision that let's me off the hook. :-)
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:36:06PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>) wrote:
> 
>> Rafik is the PC Chair.  I don?t think it is appropriate to attempt to circumvent his role and judgment on this PC appointment issue.
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>> 
>>> While I agree with the general point about need of more people to
>>> share the workload, I do *not* think this is something easy and
>>> lightweight and safe and suitable for newcomers.
>>> 
>>> There are *a lot* of new appointments coming with lots of candidates
>>> to assess, it would be very useful to be familiar with the types of
>>> working groups &c to understand what kind of candidates are best.
>>> This will be hard, ungrateful work with no perks, and I don't want to
>>> appoint people who'll stop showing up after they realize how hard it is.
>>> 
>>> But three PC members suggesting a wider call for volunteers is enough
>>> to persuade me, I will send out a call for volunteers to ncsg-discuss.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:47:20PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think this is an excellent idea, because this is a job that people can do
>>>> even if they have not been thoroughly immersed in the policy issues and day
>>>> to day work of ICANN committees.  We need to find a way to even out the
>>>> workload at ICANN, and attract people to get directly involved for
>>>> activities that are limited in scope.  This is one such activity, there are
>>>> not going to be a ton of selection processes.
>>>> 
>>>> As for reviewing the framework for this committee (which Ed and Susan
>>>> Kawaguchi worked on), that committee will separately have the task of
>>>> reviewing the efficiency and fairness of the process they devised, so it is
>>>> not really necessary for them to sit on it. I think we can safely bring in
>>>> new people, and really if the process is a good one, new people will be in
>>>> the best position to test that.
>>>> 
>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 2017-03-20 14:27, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I support extending the call to NCSG wider list to get more candidates
>>>>> and see if we can get more people putting their names and volunteer. I
>>>>> will be happy with more new folks to get involved in such process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since 3 of current candidates are members of PC  I think we should
>>>>> recuse ourselves and not participate in the selection process for
>>>>> appointing to SSC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 20, 2017 6:05 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few
>>>>>   days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they
>>>>>   are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate
>>>>>   this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering
>>>>>   sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
>>>>> 
>>>>>   I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to
>>>>>   the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more
>>>>>   nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting
>>>>>   our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Thanks,
>>>>>   Ayden
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>   -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members -
>>>>>>   GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>>>>>   Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
>>>>>>   UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
>>>>>>   From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>>
>>>>>>   To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Thank you Martin.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
>>>>>>   three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
>>>>>>   nominate someone, but not much.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
>>>>>>   internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
>>>>>>   more candidates show up.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Tapani
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva
>>>>>>   Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>>)
>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is
>>>>>>   been a long
>>>>>>> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Martin Silva
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>   <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>>>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>>>>>> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>   <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>>>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>>>>>>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>
>>>>>>   <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->>
>>>>>>   <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->>>
>>>>>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> <http://gnso.icann.org/ <http://gnso.icann.org/>>
>>>>>>   <http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> <http://gnso.icann.org/ <http://gnso.icann.org/>>>]<https://urldefense <https://urldefense/> <https://urldefense/ <https://urldefense/>>.
>>>>>>>>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_> <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>>
>>>>>>   <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_> <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>>>
>>>>>>>>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
>>>>>>>>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>>>>>>>>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>>>>>>>>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
>>>>>>>>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>>>>>   where
>>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
>>>>>>   to the
>>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>>>>>   such as
>>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>>>>   Empowered
>>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>>>   applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>>>   recommendations for
>>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
>>>>>>   to all
>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>>>>   follows:
>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and
>>>>>>   the Internet
>>>>>>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>>>>   Directory
>>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
>>>>>>   by its 20
>>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
>>>>>>   the SSC
>>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
>>>>>>   the GNSO
>>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>>>   member(s) to
>>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>>>>   <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>>>>   <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>>)> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>>>>>   Thursday 30
>>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>>>   Corporation
>>>>>>>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto: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> <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170320/424ac0f2/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Mar 20 22:13:18 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:13:18 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <98F918D5-4829-4EC8-8EEB-73E2199F3B71@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>
 <E54F16B5-7821-4731-872B-305AD3FA2097@ipjustice.org>
 <20170320194804.j2masrtgvkowpnnl@tarvainen.info>
 <98F918D5-4829-4EC8-8EEB-73E2199F3B71@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170320201318.vbdeyksmhljtbjze@tarvainen.info>

Hi Robin,

While I am not sure if and how that actually applies to the present
situation, I'm only too happy if I don't have to deal with this. :-)

So, at this point I'll leave it to other PC members to suggest
how to proceed.

Tapani

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:54:49PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> While I appreciate the attempt to jump into the void, under the NCSG Charter, the NCSG Chair is the *only* person specifically excluded from filling the role of the NCSG PC Chair.
> 
> (See NCSG Charter 2.5.3 on NCSG PC Chair ?The NCSG Chair may not serve in this role?.)
> 
> So what I think this situation means, is that the PC had better figure out how it wants to handle this asap (with those in the running recused from decision).  Here is a chance for us to fill a gap in our processes by either getting a vice-chair fast, or specifying some other means to make this decision.  But it will be up to the PC to make that decision.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> > On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Robin,
> > 
> > Yes, Rafik is PC Chair, but he is also running for the position, and
> > he just recused himself from the process. And as you may noticed I
> > accepted his judgement on the call for volunteers.
> > 
> > If we had a Vice Chair in the PC I would be only too happy to stay
> > out, but we don't. So I assume it falls on me as the general
> > all-purpose fallback executive. If the PC thinks otherwise, I will not
> > object to any consensus decision that let's me off the hook. :-)
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:36:06PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>) wrote:
> > 
> >> Rafik is the PC Chair.  I don?t think it is appropriate to attempt to circumvent his role and judgment on this PC appointment issue.
> >> 
> >> Robin
> >> 
> >>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Stephanie,
> >>> 
> >>> While I agree with the general point about need of more people to
> >>> share the workload, I do *not* think this is something easy and
> >>> lightweight and safe and suitable for newcomers.
> >>> 
> >>> There are *a lot* of new appointments coming with lots of candidates
> >>> to assess, it would be very useful to be familiar with the types of
> >>> working groups &c to understand what kind of candidates are best.
> >>> This will be hard, ungrateful work with no perks, and I don't want to
> >>> appoint people who'll stop showing up after they realize how hard it is.
> >>> 
> >>> But three PC members suggesting a wider call for volunteers is enough
> >>> to persuade me, I will send out a call for volunteers to ncsg-discuss.
> >>> 
> >>> Tapani
> >>> 
> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:47:20PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>) wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> I think this is an excellent idea, because this is a job that people can do
> >>>> even if they have not been thoroughly immersed in the policy issues and day
> >>>> to day work of ICANN committees.  We need to find a way to even out the
> >>>> workload at ICANN, and attract people to get directly involved for
> >>>> activities that are limited in scope.  This is one such activity, there are
> >>>> not going to be a ton of selection processes.
> >>>> 
> >>>> As for reviewing the framework for this committee (which Ed and Susan
> >>>> Kawaguchi worked on), that committee will separately have the task of
> >>>> reviewing the efficiency and fairness of the process they devised, so it is
> >>>> not really necessary for them to sit on it. I think we can safely bring in
> >>>> new people, and really if the process is a good one, new people will be in
> >>>> the best position to test that.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Stephanie Perrin
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 2017-03-20 14:27, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I support extending the call to NCSG wider list to get more candidates
> >>>>> and see if we can get more people putting their names and volunteer. I
> >>>>> will be happy with more new folks to get involved in such process.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Since 3 of current candidates are members of PC  I think we should
> >>>>> recuse ourselves and not participate in the selection process for
> >>>>> appointing to SSC.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Rafik
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2017 6:05 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
> >>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>   An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few
> >>>>>   days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they
> >>>>>   are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate
> >>>>>   this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering
> >>>>>   sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>   I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to
> >>>>>   the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more
> >>>>>   nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting
> >>>>>   our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>   Thanks,
> >>>>>   Ayden
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>>   -------- Original Message --------
> >>>>>>   Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members -
> >>>>>>   GNSO Standing Selection Committee
> >>>>>>   Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
> >>>>>>   UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
> >>>>>>   From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>>
> >>>>>>   To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>>
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   Thank you Martin.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
> >>>>>>   three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
> >>>>>>   nominate someone, but not much.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
> >>>>>>   internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
> >>>>>>   more candidates show up.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   Tapani
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva
> >>>>>>   Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>>)
> >>>>>>   wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is
> >>>>>>   been a long
> >>>>>>> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Martin Silva
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>   <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> hi all,
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> >>>>>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> >>>>>>>> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Best Regards,
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>>>   <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>>>:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> >>>>>>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>
> >>>>>>   <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>>> -----
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Dear All,
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> >>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> >>>>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->>
> >>>>>>   <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection- <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection->>>
> >>>>>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> <http://gnso.icann.org/ <http://gnso.icann.org/>>
> >>>>>>   <http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> <http://gnso.icann.org/ <http://gnso.icann.org/>>>]<https://urldefense <https://urldefense/> <https://urldefense/ <https://urldefense/>>.
> >>>>>>>>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_> <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>>
> >>>>>>   <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_> <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ <http://proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_>>>
> >>>>>>>>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
> >>>>>>>>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
> >>>>>>>>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
> >>>>>>>>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> >>>>>>>>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
> >>>>>>   where
> >>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
> >>>>>>   to the
> >>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
> >>>>>>   such as
> >>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
> >>>>>>   Empowered
> >>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
> >>>>>>   applicants/candidates,
> >>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
> >>>>>>   recommendations for
> >>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
> >>>>>>   to all
> >>>>>>>>> interested parties.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
> >>>>>>   follows:
> >>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
> >>>>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
> >>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> >>>>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and
> >>>>>>   the Internet
> >>>>>>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> >>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> >>>>>>>>> Group; and,
> >>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
> >>>>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> >>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
> >>>>>>   Directory
> >>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
> >>>>>>   by its 20
> >>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
> >>>>>>   the SSC
> >>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
> >>>>>>   the GNSO
> >>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> >>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
> >>>>>>   member(s) to
> >>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> >>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
> >>>>>>   <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
> >>>>>>   <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>>)> by 27 March at the
> >>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
> >>>>>>   Thursday 30
> >>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
> >>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
> >>>>>>   Corporation
> >>>>>>>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto: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> <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>


From robin at ipjustice.org  Mon Mar 20 22:23:13 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:23:13 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
	Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG GNSO Councilors are each a representative of all NCSG members, not of specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the entire SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG.  This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for all of the NCSG.

Thanks,
Robin



> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Dear all, 
> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.  
> 
> Best, 
> Martin Silva 
> 
> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> hi all,
> 
> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
> Dear all,
> 
> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> 
> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> 
> Suggestions, volunteers?
> 
> Tapani
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
> 
> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> interested parties.
> 
> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> 
> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
> 
> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> 
> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> March at 16.00 UTC.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika Konings
> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/20170320/56e666ab/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Mar 21 00:49:49 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:49:49 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
 Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>

Hi all

We have three slots to fill.  So far we have three candidates who are 
members of the PC including the PC Chair - Poncelet, Ed and Rafik - and 
as far as I know they have appropriately recused themselves from the 
process.

A call has been made to the community for further nominations - the 
deadline is Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

I suggest that the remainder of the PC be ready to assess the raft of 
candidates on the 24th (including any potential new candidates) and 
express their views on the list.  If we remain with the above three our 
job is straightforward.  If we have additional candidates then we may 
well have to vote.

We have deadline of the 27th to communicate the names of our members.

Does this make sense?

Matthew



On 20/03/2017 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
> Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG GNSO 
> Councilors are each a representative of _all_ NCSG members, not of 
> specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this 
> fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the 
> _entire_ SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG. 
>  This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I 
> personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand 
> the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for 
> all of the NCSG.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent 
>> <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a 
>> long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>
>> Best,
>> Martin Silva
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     hi all,
>>
>>     I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>     I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>     ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>>
>>         Dear all,
>>
>>         See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>
>>         Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>
>>         Suggestions, volunteers?
>>
>>         Tapani
>>
>>         ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>         <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>>         <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>>
>>
>>         Dear All,
>>
>>         On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>         Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>         https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>         <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
>>
>>         The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>         applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
>>         to the
>>         selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>         such as
>>         ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>         Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>         applicants/candidates,
>>         3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>         recommendations for
>>         review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
>>         to all
>>         interested parties.
>>
>>         The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>
>>         The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>         follows:
>>         -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of
>>         the Contracted Party House;
>>         -          One member appointed respectively from each of the
>>         Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property
>>         Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and
>>         Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>         -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial
>>         Stakeholder Group; and,
>>         -          One member from one of the three
>>         Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>
>>         The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>         selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>         Directory
>>         Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
>>         by its 20
>>         April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
>>         the SSC
>>         to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
>>         the GNSO
>>         Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>         consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>
>>         Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>         member(s) to
>>         the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>         (gnso-secs at icann.org
>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org
>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
>>         latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>         Thursday 30
>>         March at 16.00 UTC.
>>
>>         Best regards,
>>
>>         Marika Konings
>>         Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>         Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>>         ----- End forwarded message -----
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
------------
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/20170320/d8d54f56/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Tue Mar 21 01:13:03 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:13:03 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
 Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
 <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <415ad8d6-b021-2f8f-368d-a6780d8beba3@apc.org>

<Back to observer role>

seems a good approach.

avri



On 20-Mar-17 18:49, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> We have three slots to fill.  So far we have three candidates who are
> members of the PC including the PC Chair - Poncelet, Ed and Rafik -
> and as far as I know they have appropriately recused themselves from
> the process.
>
> A call has been made to the community for further nominations - the
> deadline is Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.  
>
> I suggest that the remainder of the PC be ready to assess the raft of
> candidates on the 24th (including any potential new candidates) and
> express their views on the list.  If we remain with the above three
> our job is straightforward.  If we have additional candidates then we
> may well have to vote.
>
> We have deadline of the 27th to communicate the names of our members.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 20/03/2017 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG
>> GNSO Councilors are each a representative of _all_ NCSG members, not
>> of specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this
>> fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the
>> _entire_ SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG.
>>  This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I
>> personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand
>> the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for
>> all of the NCSG.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>>> <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all, 
>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been
>>> a long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.  
>>>
>>> Best, 
>>> Martin Silva 
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     hi all,
>>>
>>>     I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>     I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>     ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>
>>>     Best Regards,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>>>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>>>
>>>         Dear all,
>>>
>>>         See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>
>>>         Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>
>>>         Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>
>>>         Tapani
>>>
>>>         ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>         <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>>>
>>>
>>>         Dear All,
>>>
>>>         On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>         Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>         https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>         <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
>>>
>>>         The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>>         where
>>>         applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
>>>         to the
>>>         selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>>         such as
>>>         ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>         Empowered
>>>         Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>         applicants/candidates,
>>>         3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>         recommendations for
>>>         review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
>>>         to all
>>>         interested parties.
>>>
>>>         The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>
>>>         The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>         follows:
>>>         -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of
>>>         the Contracted Party House;
>>>         -          One member appointed respectively from each of
>>>         the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property
>>>         Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and
>>>         Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>         -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial
>>>         Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>         -          One member from one of the three
>>>         Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>
>>>         The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>         selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>         Directory
>>>         Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
>>>         by its 20
>>>         April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
>>>         the SSC
>>>         to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
>>>         the GNSO
>>>         Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>         consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>
>>>         Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>         member(s) to
>>>         the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>         (gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
>>>         latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>>         Thursday 30
>>>         March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>
>>>         Best regards,
>>>
>>>         Marika Konings
>>>         Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>         Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>>         ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> -- 
> ------------
> 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


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



From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Mar 21 01:15:56 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 23:15:56 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
In-Reply-To: <L5ac52BhdhlS0FlEugmZ_BMhnaQWSUXoQ2LE0gUW5f21RQTvbBBmdrhBlNmBve6Fa3L00pxBLUGxE1Ec6REhw-ek0v559_3-IM-oPq47TRA=@ferdeline.com>
References: <0_l8LaXgd-lCa3qM0AwrpdxXBgY2KISPatFfn3cjDFcMDFXUtbwxgeevHgAgbN-GTXl4XoNHzKllcPW_ScXqPYXTQ4gxhI05J8edeAzOm30=@ferdeline.com>
 <ef6eb7a0e67645ca9658a67a5ce3c35a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <L5ac52BhdhlS0FlEugmZ_BMhnaQWSUXoQ2LE0gUW5f21RQTvbBBmdrhBlNmBve6Fa3L00pxBLUGxE1Ec6REhw-ek0v559_3-IM-oPq47TRA=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <fc6e8670-62a1-47ec-7096-e9c73e9ccbde@cdt.org>

Thanks Ayden.

I may have missed it but is there a list of question raised so far?  Has 
anyone done a review of the budget?

Matthew


On 20/03/2017 19:50, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Our request for an extension until Friday to submit questions relating 
> to the FY-18 budget has been granted.
>
> - Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
>> Local Time: 20 March 2017 7:37 PM
>> UTC Time: 20 March 2017 19:37
>> From: leo.vegoda at icann.org
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> planning at icann.org <planning at icann.org>
>>
>> Dear Ayden F?rdeline,
>>
>>
>> We will extend the date for questions seeking clarification, as 
>> requested. We have updated the dates on the Public Comment web page 
>> and I will send a message to the community-finance at icann.org 
>> <mailto:community-finance at icann.org> list in a few minutes.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>> Leo
>>
>>
>> *From:*planning-bounces at icann.org [mailto:planning-bounces at icann.org] 
>> *On Behalf Of *Ayden F?rdeline
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 19, 2017 11:30 AM
>> *To:* planning at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
>>
>>
>> In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder 
>> Group (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the deadline of 19 March 
>> 2017 to submit questions in relation to the FY18 Operating Plan and 
>> Budget. The NCSG will endeavour to provide questions seeking 
>> clarification regarding line items by 25 March 2017.
>>
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline[linkedin.com] 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_ferdeline&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=3kO12rHf5gUWpTfRRZOw4KeQft_v6KJmL1lhxXH_-2M&s=uohIuaWNF11kdSeHvgNlR4LI70dIaKseEoSBPqQGCJE&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
------------
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/20170320/5f4ad5c1/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Tue Mar 21 01:19:09 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:19:09 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <20170320194804.j2masrtgvkowpnnl@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>
 <E54F16B5-7821-4731-872B-305AD3FA2097@ipjustice.org>
 <20170320194804.j2masrtgvkowpnnl@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <b64743b7-693c-e5a7-2fce-b59ff3bf336f@apc.org>

Hi,


On 20-Mar-17 15:48, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> If we had a Vice Chair in the PC 

I thought we did have a v-chair. 

Matt was chosen as v-chair, is still a member of the PC and no other
v-chair has been chosen since.  why would he cease being v-chair,
especially he was chosen late in the year?

i think Matt should step up while Rafik is enjoying his nuptials.

avri

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



From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Tue Mar 21 01:19:50 2017
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:19:50 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
In-Reply-To: <fc6e8670-62a1-47ec-7096-e9c73e9ccbde@cdt.org>
References: <0_l8LaXgd-lCa3qM0AwrpdxXBgY2KISPatFfn3cjDFcMDFXUtbwxgeevHgAgbN-GTXl4XoNHzKllcPW_ScXqPYXTQ4gxhI05J8edeAzOm30=@ferdeline.com>
 <ef6eb7a0e67645ca9658a67a5ce3c35a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <L5ac52BhdhlS0FlEugmZ_BMhnaQWSUXoQ2LE0gUW5f21RQTvbBBmdrhBlNmBve6Fa3L00pxBLUGxE1Ec6REhw-ek0v559_3-IM-oPq47TRA=@ferdeline.com>
 <fc6e8670-62a1-47ec-7096-e9c73e9ccbde@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvDzV_A4bqRUMut7MJNbkzswCYp=5iCH4J3MFhK-L=F4ag@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

I had plans for NCUC to submit a public comment for having a full time
employee to help the constituency travel with facilitating invitation
letters and in general help with the loadwork so that visa seekers face
less hurdles. I also thought it would be a good idea to ask for more travel
slots for the leaders of NCUC since we have trouble getting everyone there
and EC works hard. I don't know if these plans are sound but I thought we
could ask.

Farzaneh

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:15 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Thanks Ayden.
>
> I may have missed it but is there a list of question raised so far?  Has
> anyone done a review of the budget?
>
> Matthew
>
> On 20/03/2017 19:50, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> Our request for an extension until Friday to submit questions relating to
> the FY-18 budget has been granted.
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
> Local Time: 20 March 2017 7:37 PM
> UTC Time: 20 March 2017 19:37
> From: leo.vegoda at icann.org
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> <icann at ferdeline.com>
> planning at icann.org <planning at icann.org> <planning at icann.org>
>
> Dear Ayden F?rdeline,
>
>
>
> We will extend the date for questions seeking clarification, as requested.
> We have updated the dates on the Public Comment web page and I will send a
> message to the community-finance at icann.org list in a few minutes.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Leo
>
>
>
> *From:* planning-bounces at icann.org [mailto:planning-bounces at icann.org
> <planning-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ayden F?rdeline
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 19, 2017 11:30 AM
> *To:* planning at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
>
>
>
> In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the deadline of 19 March 2017 to
> submit questions in relation to the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. The
> NCSG will endeavour to provide questions seeking clarification regarding
> line items by 25 March 2017.
>
>
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
>
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline[linkedin.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_ferdeline&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=3kO12rHf5gUWpTfRRZOw4KeQft_v6KJmL1lhxXH_-2M&s=uohIuaWNF11kdSeHvgNlR4LI70dIaKseEoSBPqQGCJE&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170320/41ce76c2/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Tue Mar 21 01:23:58 2017
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:23:58 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <b64743b7-693c-e5a7-2fce-b59ff3bf336f@apc.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>
 <E54F16B5-7821-4731-872B-305AD3FA2097@ipjustice.org>
 <20170320194804.j2masrtgvkowpnnl@tarvainen.info>
 <b64743b7-693c-e5a7-2fce-b59ff3bf336f@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvBeBuyTBDsG0Rdxe5tivv8sE2AuEC=dhqmgbpwm1rwvNw@mail.gmail.com>

+1 Avri. But I am just an observer so prolly irrelevant but we don't have a
strict procedure of appointing new vice chair and chair everytime if the
previous members still willing to serve. Right?

Farzaneh

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:19 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> On 20-Mar-17 15:48, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > If we had a Vice Chair in the PC
>
> I thought we did have a v-chair.
>
> Matt was chosen as v-chair, is still a member of the PC and no other
> v-chair has been chosen since.  why would he cease being v-chair,
> especially he was chosen late in the year?
>
> i think Matt should step up while Rafik is enjoying his nuptials.
>
> avri
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170320/4553a068/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar 21 01:28:30 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:28:30 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvDzV_A4bqRUMut7MJNbkzswCYp=5iCH4J3MFhK-L=F4ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0_l8LaXgd-lCa3qM0AwrpdxXBgY2KISPatFfn3cjDFcMDFXUtbwxgeevHgAgbN-GTXl4XoNHzKllcPW_ScXqPYXTQ4gxhI05J8edeAzOm30=@ferdeline.com>
 <ef6eb7a0e67645ca9658a67a5ce3c35a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
 <L5ac52BhdhlS0FlEugmZ_BMhnaQWSUXoQ2LE0gUW5f21RQTvbBBmdrhBlNmBve6Fa3L00pxBLUGxE1Ec6REhw-ek0v559_3-IM-oPq47TRA=@ferdeline.com>
 <fc6e8670-62a1-47ec-7096-e9c73e9ccbde@cdt.org>
 <CAN1qJvDzV_A4bqRUMut7MJNbkzswCYp=5iCH4J3MFhK-L=F4ag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24USdaRqqL1MBfLiyjvW1j6ZXxtR4mpIQniyqxxzUJeURQY6U3TrjCbNtZ7TCX4AgGOnWeWMH9coOFkQa_hS03fhVpKI8VcvqkjCukbPuy4=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

Just a quick note, the deadline this week is just for questions and clarifications regarding line items contained within the budget. Comments on the budget itself are due in the last week of April and I believe there is then some leeway for ICANN staff to review our comments and to potentially adjust the budget accordingly. So I am thinking comments re: travel slots should come next month, but now might be a good time to clarify precisely how much $ is going to ALAC versus others...

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fw: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
Local Time: 20 March 2017 11:19 PM
UTC Time: 20 March 2017 23:19
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
To: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Hi

I had plans for NCUC to submit a public comment for having a full time employee to help the constituency travel with facilitating invitation letters and in general help with the loadwork so that visa seekers face less hurdles. I also thought it would be a good idea to ask for more travel slots for the leaders of NCUC since we have trouble getting everyone there and EC works hard. I don't know if these plans are sound but I thought we could ask.

Farzaneh

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:15 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

Thanks Ayden.

I may have missed it but is there a list of question raised so far? Has anyone done a review of the budget?

Matthew

On 20/03/2017 19:50, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:

Our request for an extension until Friday to submit questions relating to the FY-18 budget has been granted.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget
Local Time: 20 March 2017 7:37 PM
UTC Time: 20 March 2017 19:37
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org
To: Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
planning at icann.org [<planning at icann.org>](mailto:planning at icann.org)

Dear Ayden F?rdeline,

We will extend the date for questions seeking clarification, as requested. We have updated the dates on the Public Comment web page and I will send a message to the community-finance at icann.org list in a few minutes.

Kind regards,

Leo

From: planning-bounces at icann.org [mailto:planning-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 11:30 AM
To: planning at icann.org
Subject: [Planning] NCSG Questions re: FY18 Budget

In light of travel from Copenhagen, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) kindly requests an extension to the deadline of 19 March 2017 to submit questions in relation to the FY18 Operating Plan and Budget. The NCSG will endeavour to provide questions seeking clarification regarding line items by 25 March 2017.

Ayden F?rdeline

[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline[linkedin.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_ferdeline&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=3kO12rHf5gUWpTfRRZOw4KeQft_v6KJmL1lhxXH_-2M&s=uohIuaWNF11kdSeHvgNlR4LI70dIaKseEoSBPqQGCJE&e=)

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)

______________________________

_________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is

[https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/

listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc)

--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
[+ 44 771 2472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987)

_______________________________________________
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/20170320/d824e438/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Tue Mar 21 02:01:47 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:01:47 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
 Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAJjnsDGprtQ3GZPF6xTwVYMn_HNOb4asKk-NGegwB2pQKeVFvw@mail.gmail.com>

Robin,

Thanks for the thought, don't worry,  in this case I  am fully aware of
that, I am just the messenger since I contacted NPOC  when Poncelet
nominated himself. I just asked the ExCom  if that was an official final
nominations or they had others to consider,they say Poncelet was their
choice. If someone else like Klaus has to say it then I will ask  him to
express it here.

Even thought I did understand this time my role, I appreciate the
educational effort, don't stop the intention, I am sure I they will be
useful.

Best,
Martin

On 20 Mar 2017 9:23 p.m., "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG GNSO
Councilors are each a representative of *all* NCSG members, not of specific
constituencies, and it is important you understand this fundamental
responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the *entire* SG
membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG.  This is not
meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I personally support,
just to be sure you as a new councilor understand the nature of your role
on the GNSO Council as a representative for all of the NCSG.

Thanks,
Robin




On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear all,
I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.

Best,
Martin Silva

On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> hi all,
>
> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>
>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>
>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-co
>> mmittee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.pr
>> oofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_dra
>> ft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=
>> DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_
>> FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG
>> &m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3
>> olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>
>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>> interested parties.
>>
>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>
>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>> Contracted Party House;
>> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>> Group; and,
>> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>
>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>
>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marika Konings
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170320/6910f587/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Tue Mar 21 02:55:11 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:55:11 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members -
	GNSO	Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <66211B1C-3B2B-4F7E-8F64-332C067FE250@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170320185759.nxdjvgy7wq52bbsf@tarvainen.info>,
 <66211B1C-3B2B-4F7E-8F64-332C067FE250@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5219B7A5B355FAB89411D64F73D0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

+1 to keeping it restricted to the PC. Robin put it very nicely!

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Inviato: luned? 20 marzo 2017 20.27.06
A: Tapani Tarvainen
Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO  Standing Selection Committee

This is a decision of the NCSG PC.  It is a matter before the NCSG PC.  I suggest we allow the NCSG PC to handle this as has been its practice and pursuant to the PC Chair?s guidance.

I would not be in favor of turning NCSG decisions over to constituencies as suggested below.  The SG and C have separate roles and responsibilities and this proposal muddies those waters in dangerous and slippery ways.

Thanks,
Robin


> On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
> First to your second point: there're indeed three slots for NCSG, but
> originally it was proposed one per constituency. The argument that won
> us the third slot was that we have members who belong to neither as
> well as many who belong to both constituencies. It could have been one
> per constituency plus one non-constituency-tied slot for NCSG as well,
> and I think it was mainly due to lack of time that the decision was
> made to leave it up to the NCSG to pick three as a SG.
>
> With that history, I think we should give each constituency at least
> one slot in any case (as long as they have a volunteer, and both do).
>
> As for calling for volunteers on the -discuss list, I'm not sure it'd
> be necessary, as the nature of the job is such that it's hardly
> suitable for newcomers - while there's no formal requirement, I tend
> to think councillors and PC members should be preferred. And time is
> short. But you are welcome to spread the word in whichever way you
> want, of course.
>
> As to who decides, generally the Policy Committee is responsible for
> NCSG appointments. In this case we could even let each constituency
> formally pick theirs and leave only the 3rd to be decided by the PC,
> but if we can agree that there should be a representative from each
> constituency, I think it'd be fine to let the PC choose all three.
>
> As for how candidates would be assessed, we have no time to set up
> proper formal criteria. As per above, I would suggest
> (1) at least one per constituency;
> (2) preference given to councillors, PC members and former councillors;
> (3) look at the council decision for necessary qualifications.
>
> But in the end we'll just have to discuss alternatives and if
> necessary vote within the PC.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:05:26PM -0400, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
>
>> An internal deadline makes sense - and I'm glad it is still a few days away, as I have heard off-list from one NCUC member that they are considering putting their name forward. I will communicate this internal deadline to them. Might it be worth considering sending a call for nominations to the general NCSG list?
>>
>> I also note that the three slots are allocated to the NCSG, not to the NCUC or to NPOC. In the event that there are four or more nominations for the three slots, who is responsible for selecting our representatives, and how will the candidates be assessed?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ayden
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>> Local Time: 20 March 2017 4:22 PM
>> UTC Time: 20 March 2017 16:22
>> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>> Thank you Martin.
>>
>> That leaves us with the confortable situation of three volunteers for
>> three positions, if I understood correctly that Avri isn't available:
>>
>> Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.
>>
>> There's still time though if someone else wants to volunteer or
>> nominate someone, but not much.
>>
>> Given that council's deadline is Monday, 27 March, let's make our
>> internal deadline Thursday, 23 March, at 23:59 UTC.
>>
>> That leaves us Friday and the weekend to make our decision in case
>> more candidates show up.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:06:33PM -0300, Martin Pablo Silva Valent (mpsilvavalent at gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long
>>> time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Martin Silva
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>> ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.
>>>>> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
>>>>> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&
>>>>> d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>>>>> PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSD
>>>>> zgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
>>>>> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>
>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
>>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>
>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
>>>>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

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

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


From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Tue Mar 21 03:09:47 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:09:47 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
 Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <415ad8d6-b021-2f8f-368d-a6780d8beba3@apc.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
 <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>,
 <415ad8d6-b021-2f8f-368d-a6780d8beba3@apc.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521FC4344B85675A0D04E88F73D0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

makes sense, thanks Matt

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di avri doria <avri at apc.org>
Inviato: marted? 21 marzo 2017 00.13.03
A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing Selection Committee

<Back to observer role>

seems a good approach.

avri



On 20-Mar-17 18:49, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> We have three slots to fill.  So far we have three candidates who are
> members of the PC including the PC Chair - Poncelet, Ed and Rafik -
> and as far as I know they have appropriately recused themselves from
> the process.
>
> A call has been made to the community for further nominations - the
> deadline is Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>
> I suggest that the remainder of the PC be ready to assess the raft of
> candidates on the 24th (including any potential new candidates) and
> express their views on the list.  If we remain with the above three
> our job is straightforward.  If we have additional candidates then we
> may well have to vote.
>
> We have deadline of the 27th to communicate the names of our members.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 20/03/2017 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG
>> GNSO Councilors are each a representative of _all_ NCSG members, not
>> of specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this
>> fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the
>> _entire_ SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG.
>>  This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I
>> personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand
>> the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for
>> all of the NCSG.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>>> <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been
>>> a long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Martin Silva
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     hi all,
>>>
>>>     I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>     I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>     ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>
>>>     Best Regards,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>>>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>>>
>>>         Dear all,
>>>
>>>         See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>
>>>         Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>
>>>         Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>
>>>         Tapani
>>>
>>>         ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>         <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>>>
>>>
>>>         Dear All,
>>>
>>>         On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>         Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>         https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>         <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
>>>
>>>         The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>>         where
>>>         applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
>>>         to the
>>>         selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>>         such as
>>>         ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>         Empowered
>>>         Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>         applicants/candidates,
>>>         3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>         recommendations for
>>>         review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
>>>         to all
>>>         interested parties.
>>>
>>>         The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>
>>>         The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>         follows:
>>>         -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of
>>>         the Contracted Party House;
>>>         -          One member appointed respectively from each of
>>>         the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property
>>>         Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and
>>>         Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>         -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial
>>>         Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>         -          One member from one of the three
>>>         Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>
>>>         The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>         selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>         Directory
>>>         Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
>>>         by its 20
>>>         April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
>>>         the SSC
>>>         to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
>>>         the GNSO
>>>         Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>         consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>
>>>         Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>         member(s) to
>>>         the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>         (gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
>>>         latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>>         Thursday 30
>>>         March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>
>>>         Best regards,
>>>
>>>         Marika Konings
>>>         Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>         Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>>         ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>      Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> --
> ------------
> 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


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

_______________________________________________
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 ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Mar 21 07:33:21 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:33:21 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for confirmation of members - GNSO
 Standing Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <b64743b7-693c-e5a7-2fce-b59ff3bf336f@apc.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170320162254.lwtjn34sltpngbdd@tarvainen.info>
 <gOLCebwJDrThejedt2nqRdWKDnoUx-qBG_8Bw1pvMmG8CiiaCw7K0DYiZ2v95YyAFEs7BJ3Q0p1zhGydtUpgLbSB4GydBfw9m3SFlvKh0JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmsk2kJuiSp8aLUb9WfUv6KPm3nCNdNb4TOURB4Gr=fYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c1045f4f-d352-fc79-4d2d-70ea93be3013@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170320193326.4u5tqvok2akxksip@tarvainen.info>
 <E54F16B5-7821-4731-872B-305AD3FA2097@ipjustice.org>
 <20170320194804.j2masrtgvkowpnnl@tarvainen.info>
 <b64743b7-693c-e5a7-2fce-b59ff3bf336f@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20170321053321.awjw67tmc2mrjbtx@tarvainen.info>

Hi Avri,

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 07:19:09PM -0400, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:

> I thought we did have a v-chair. 
> 
> Matt was chosen as v-chair, is still a member of the PC and no other
> v-chair has been chosen since.  why would he cease being v-chair,
> especially he was chosen late in the year?

Late in the year? Unless I'm mistaken, Matt and David were elected
vice-chairs in March 2016, a year ago now, and our charter says VCs
are elected on a yearly basis. And as they were elected at the same
time as Marilia was elected Chair, I'd assumed their terms ended at
the same time, too.

But that was never explicitly decided and there're no clear rules in
the charter about how and when exactly that should happen. So if Matt
and David are willing to consider themselves Vice-Chairs still, I
certainly won't object.

> i think Matt should step up while Rafik is enjoying his nuptials.

Sounds good to me.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Mar 21 07:34:53 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:34:53 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
 Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
 <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <20170321053453.54bm2vf4775tf55m@tarvainen.info>

+1.

And another +1 for you handling the process. :-)

Tapani

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:49:49PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> We have three slots to fill.  So far we have three candidates who are
> members of the PC including the PC Chair - Poncelet, Ed and Rafik - and as
> far as I know they have appropriately recused themselves from the process.
> 
> A call has been made to the community for further nominations - the deadline
> is Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
> 
> I suggest that the remainder of the PC be ready to assess the raft of
> candidates on the 24th (including any potential new candidates) and express
> their views on the list.  If we remain with the above three our job is
> straightforward.  If we have additional candidates then we may well have to
> vote.
> 
> We have deadline of the 27th to communicate the names of our members.
> 
> Does this make sense?
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> 
> On 20/03/2017 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
> > Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG GNSO
> > Councilors are each a representative of _all_ NCSG members, not of
> > specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this
> > fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the
> > _entire_ SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG.
> > This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I
> > personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand
> > the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for all
> > of the NCSG.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> > > <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Dear all,
> > > I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been
> > > a long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > Martin Silva
> > > 
> > > On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > 
> > >     hi all,
> > > 
> > >     I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
> > >     I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
> > >     ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
> > > 
> > >     Best Regards,
> > > 
> > >     Rafik
> > > 
> > >     2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
> > >     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
> > > 
> > >         Dear all,
> > > 
> > >         See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> > > 
> > >         Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
> > > 
> > >         Suggestions, volunteers?
> > > 
> > >         Tapani
> > > 
> > >         ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
> > >         <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
> > >         <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
> > > 
> > > 
> > >         Dear All,
> > > 
> > >         On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> > >         Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> > >         https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
> > >         <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
> > >         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
> > > 
> > >         The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> > >         applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
> > >         to the
> > >         selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
> > >         such as
> > >         ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> > >         Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
> > >         applicants/candidates,
> > >         3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
> > >         recommendations for
> > >         review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
> > >         to all
> > >         interested parties.
> > > 
> > >         The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> > > 
> > >         The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
> > >         follows:
> > >         -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of
> > >         the Contracted Party House;
> > >         -          One member appointed respectively from each of the
> > >         Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property
> > >         Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and
> > >         Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> > >         -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial
> > >         Stakeholder Group; and,
> > >         -          One member from one of the three
> > >         Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
> > > 
> > >         The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> > >         selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
> > >         Directory
> > >         Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
> > >         by its 20
> > >         April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
> > >         the SSC
> > >         to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
> > >         the GNSO
> > >         Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> > >         consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> > > 
> > >         Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
> > >         member(s) to
> > >         the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> > >         (gnso-secs at icann.org
> > >         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org
> > >         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
> > >         latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
> > >         Thursday 30
> > >         March at 16.00 UTC.
> > > 
> > >         Best regards,
> > > 
> > >         Marika Konings
> > >         Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
> > >         Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> > > 
> > >         ----- End forwarded message -----
> > >         _______________________________________________
> > >         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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> > 
> > 
> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> > 	Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> 
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Mar 21 07:38:23 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:38:23 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection
 Committee - URGENT
Message-ID: <20170321053823.snqh4c5tmrjj2unx@tarvainen.info>

FYI, I just got this.

Tapani

----- Forwarded message from Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> -----

Subject: Re: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:32:02 +0400
From: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com>
To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>

I would like to come forward to support the initiative. I am keen to give some time to support the work remotely. I?ve been on ISOC elections committee and Afrinic Nomcom and understand the challenge of the process.


> On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:40 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> 
> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
> 
> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
> think you would be qualified for the task.
> 
> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> 
> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> interested parties.
> 
> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> 
> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
> 
> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> 
> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)> by 27 March at the
> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> March at 16.00 UTC.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika Konings
> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----

Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>





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

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar 21 22:22:46 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:22:46 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [DRAFT] Budget Questions
Message-ID: <Z9rMDp87y5I3UmE94f97fKNObSCeouw93lJ-VhwBW3_pulF8kqkFsFzroSEBZRP4krPJ6u6L4JDKjD3aOpRjA8RD14QyTKwlJvtlVSBjUtU=@ferdeline.com>

Okay, so here are the seven questions I have re: the FY-18 budget. More might come in time. Please feel free to edit, add more, etc. We need to submit these by Friday...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks,
Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170321/57b795fb/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Mar 23 20:09:43 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:09:43 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [DRAFT] Budget Questions
In-Reply-To: <Z9rMDp87y5I3UmE94f97fKNObSCeouw93lJ-VhwBW3_pulF8kqkFsFzroSEBZRP4krPJ6u6L4JDKjD3aOpRjA8RD14QyTKwlJvtlVSBjUtU=@ferdeline.com>
References: <Z9rMDp87y5I3UmE94f97fKNObSCeouw93lJ-VhwBW3_pulF8kqkFsFzroSEBZRP4krPJ6u6L4JDKjD3aOpRjA8RD14QyTKwlJvtlVSBjUtU=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <cpilyD5cOskyk7DKH0K_sla9GV6Re--oau9nhap-7AnJW-BNufwmY5BwlyKkOdZ3qj5FsaPoRrH_e1u0sGuCFgYTgJL2cfiYiGlvjii2Bdk=@ferdeline.com>

Hi all,

Please try to submit comments or additional questions regarding the FY18 Budget ASAP. We need to send this off tomorrow. If you otherwise support these questions being asked, please also indicate support on-list. Thank you!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:22 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
Okay, so here are the seven questions I have re: the FY-18 budget. More might come in time. Please feel free to edit, add more, etc. We need to submit these by Friday...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks,
Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170323/a20c5186/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 01:09:57 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:09:57 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <qN6G0RTAH411CCCxP6WbO06iCZq-1KEX9Pp-hrapa7RBkh7U7kjrshDxd3OWP-uFA7ZdpVAM9lY1JqX4bfslMddGtNp7ajHZvMGtbUgCUHo=@ferdeline.com>

The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable with it.

Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow, once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that is a possible outcome.

If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments, it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to do so... :-)

That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not support.

Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if applicable.

Ayden

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>,Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
CC:

Hi all

I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, can endorse these comments for NCSG.

The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be rectifying this promptly.

Matthew

On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:

Hello PC

Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these suggested inputs carefully.

Related docs can be found here.

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en

Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.

Thanks.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
Date:	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
From:	Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at FERDELINE.COM>](mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM)
Reply-To:	Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
To:	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Greetings all,

I have drafted up [on Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing) some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a read of the [proposed statement here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing), with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this mailing list!

Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this together unfortunately. You can [read the draft report here](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf) (PDF link) if you haven't seen it already.

A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted).

Best wishes,

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

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)

--
------------
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/20170323/5224d401/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar 24 02:20:25 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:20:25 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC
	Review
In-Reply-To: <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>

I just spent some time commenting.  I would suggest that we keep working 
on them, try to develop a more positive tone that indicates our shared 
experience.....but we are not going to get people to sign up for 
drafting comments if we reject them.  Folks are always going to be too 
busy to engage in a fulsome discussion.

Happy to hear about a better process....but in the meantime, better to 
fix this and boil it down to a couple of pages we can agree on than to 
give up, in my view....

cheers Stephanie

PS I think you used the old address so I included the new one....



On 2017-03-23 18:27, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments 
> (tomorrow).  I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into 
> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration.   This said, we have had 
> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the 
> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to 
> do so.   Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, 
> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>
> The NCSG PC should have a  better process in place for ensuring that 
> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be 
> rectifying this promptly.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>>
>> Hello PC
>>
>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow.  Please review these 
>> suggested inputs carefully.
>>
>> Related docs can be found here.
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>
>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> Date: 	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>> From: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>> Reply-To: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> I have drafted up on Google Docs 
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing> 
>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the 
>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome 
>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have 
>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with 
>> it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words 
>> down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a 
>> read of the proposed statement here 
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>, 
>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And 
>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this 
>> mailing list!
>>
>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this 
>> together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here 
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF 
>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>>
>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing 
>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed 
>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between 
>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------
> 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/20170323/60452512/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 04:01:24 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:01:24 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC
	Review
In-Reply-To: <4268b6fd-2c37-683e-8281-b81db39e100e@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
 <d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <4268b6fd-2c37-683e-8281-b81db39e100e@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <PK013UuYvQrqHX8C5NkatNYAfsVz1tF3KcfIzJFGMazhvz06rhmvqlqjaME0XXVapZ-odenQKpHr9b5gnA9P4dwjWQdK6ARzPmVHCvT44YU=@ferdeline.com>

Thank you for the kind words, Stephanie, and for the helpful edits. A new draft of the proposed statement is now available. It would be appreciated if everyone could please review it, and propose alternative text if and where applicable. This is a very different document than you may have reviewed a few hours ago.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s

Best,

Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:24 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

ANd I forgot to say, many thanks to Ayden for slogging away on this!! the report was a beast to get through, and pulling this together a hard task. Don't worry I think we can still get a shorter perhaps comment if a few of us can pull together and put in some comments. Dont everybody disappear tomorrow on a Friday break....

Stephanie

On 2017-03-23 20:20, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

I just spent some time commenting. I would suggest that we keep working on them, try to develop a more positive tone that indicates our shared experience.....but we are not going to get people to sign up for drafting comments if we reject them. Folks are always going to be too busy to engage in a fulsome discussion.

Happy to hear about a better process....but in the meantime, better to fix this and boil it down to a couple of pages we can agree on than to give up, in my view....

cheers Stephanie

PS I think you used the old address so I included the new one....

On 2017-03-23 18:27, matthew shears wrote:

Hi all

I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, can endorse these comments for NCSG.

The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be rectifying this promptly.

Matthew

On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:

Hello PC

Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these suggested inputs carefully.

Related docs can be found here.

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en

Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.

Thanks.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
Date:	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
From:	Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at FERDELINE.COM>](mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM)
Reply-To:	Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
To:	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Greetings all,

I have drafted up [on Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing) some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a read of the [proposed statement here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing), with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this mailing list!

Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this together unfortunately. You can [read the draft report here](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf) (PDF link) if you haven't seen it already.

A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted).

Best wishes,

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

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)

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

_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org

http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org

http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170323/49bd53d5/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 04:30:23 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:30:23 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC
	Review
In-Reply-To: <481e1598-df6a-46f2-8602-35a050e5aeb6@kathykleiman.com>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <481e1598-df6a-46f2-8602-35a050e5aeb6@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <qJtXtKpVl1PYSH4EQrRtP708HkVh25rQQgzcE5MD4Rcmc6zeSjpGm8_b1AirqLTK-_--CgDe8_aNxRT6rOwnlMsQ9XFbOS0NvuQuhU9TTGo=@ferdeline.com>

Thank you for this reminder, Kathy.

RE: FY18 Comment ? Given we will submit our Budget questions today [I understand some PC members have concerns around this, but I am not sure what the concern is], and it may take four weeks for us to receive a reply, I would just like to flag that this may only leave 5 days for our comment to come together. I don't see this as an issue; we can get our comment developed in that time. However I am raising this issue today so that others are aware well in advance of the comment deadline. I would not like anyone to be surprised that a draft comment has appeared on our mailing list at the last minute. One will, and that is largely inevitable in this situation.

Ayden

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

Hi All, At our PC meeting in Copenhagen, various people volunteered to work on comments (hooray!).

Later, others came up to join them. I've shared this list with Stefania (our comments shepherd), and let me share them with you:

ICANN Public Comments1. IGO-INGO - Martin (lead), Haoran Huang (new member, huaghaoran940419 at bupt.edu.cn), Kathy
2. At Large Review - Ayden (lead), Kathy
3. Consumer Trust Review Team (50 recommendations!) - Anna (lead), Kathy with Carlos as advisor (since he's on the Review Team)
4. Finance - not certain about this one, but I think Ed, Rafik and Ayden volunteered.

Working Groups comments (requests go out for input on various issues from time to time during the PDP process):

1. Registration Directory Services - Stephanie (lead), Ayden and Stefania

2. Rights Protection Mechanisms - Martin (lead), Anna, Grace and Ines with Kathy as advisor (since she's a co-chair)
3. Subsequent Procedures - Matt Shears (I think he wants to be the lead), Anna, Stefania, Marilia (I think) with Avri as advisor (since she's a co-chair)

Best, Kathy

On 3/23/2017 7:33 AM, matthew shears wrote:

Hello PC

Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these suggested inputs carefully.

Related docs can be found here.

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en

Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.

Thanks.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
Date:	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
From:	Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at FERDELINE.COM>](mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM)
Reply-To:	Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
To:	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Greetings all,

I have drafted up [on Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing) some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a read of the [proposed statement here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing), with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this mailing list!

Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this together unfortunately. You can [read the draft report here](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf) (PDF link) if you haven't seen it already.

A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted).

Best wishes,

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

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)

_______________________________________________
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/20170323/544a5350/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Fri Mar 24 06:00:01 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:01 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC
	Review
In-Reply-To: <qN6G0RTAH411CCCxP6WbO06iCZq-1KEX9Pp-hrapa7RBkh7U7kjrshDxd3OWP-uFA7ZdpVAM9lY1JqX4bfslMddGtNp7ajHZvMGtbUgCUHo=@ferdeline.com>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
 <qN6G0RTAH411CCCxP6WbO06iCZq-1KEX9Pp-hrapa7RBkh7U7kjrshDxd3OWP-uFA7ZdpVAM9lY1JqX4bfslMddGtNp7ajHZvMGtbUgCUHo=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <08fcb61f-a2f7-227c-db20-2bc5b5ec8713@apc.org>

Hi,

I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft.  As
you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
specific about what those were.

In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice).  I have layered
some more edits on Stephanie's revision.  While I still do not agree
with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more diplomatic.

I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.

avri


On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
> continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
> on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable with it. 
>
> Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
> once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
> endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
> is a possible outcome. 
>
> If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
> it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
> do so... :-)
>
> That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
> be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not support. 
>
> Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
> much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
> seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
> 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
> propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
> constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
> applicable. 
>
> Ayden  
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
> Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
> CC:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>> (tomorrow).  I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration.   This said, we have had
>> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
>> do so.   Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
>> can endorse these comments for NCSG.   
>>
>> The NCSG PC should have a  better process in place for ensuring that
>> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>> rectifying this promptly.  
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello PC
>>>
>>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow.  Please review these
>>> suggested inputs carefully.
>>>
>>> Related docs can be found here.
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>>
>>>
>>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
>>> asap.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: 	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>>> Date: 	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>>> From: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>>> Reply-To: 	Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings all,
>>>
>>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
>>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
>>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
>>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
>>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
>>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
>>> mailing list!
>>>
>>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF
>>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>>>
>>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
>>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
>>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------
>> 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



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



From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 10:32:43 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 04:32:43 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
Message-ID: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>

Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and commented in the document where I have not.

I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are welcome to sign on, too].

Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now will be named as signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on too. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote: Hi,

I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft. As
you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
specific about what those were.

In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more diplomatic.

I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.

avri

On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
> continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
> on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable with it.
>
> Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
> once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
> endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
> is a possible outcome.
>
> If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
> it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
> do so... :-)
>
> That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
> be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not support.
>
> Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
> much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
> seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
> 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
> propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
> constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
> applicable.
>
> Ayden
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
> Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
> CC:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had
>> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
>> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
>> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>>
>> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that
>> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>> rectifying this promptly.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello PC
>>>
>>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
>>> suggested inputs carefully.
>>>
>>> Related docs can be found here.
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>>
>>>
>>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
>>> asap.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings all,
>>>
>>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
>>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
>>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
>>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
>>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
>>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
>>> mailing list!
>>>
>>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF
>>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>>>
>>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
>>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
>>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------
>> 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

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

_______________________________________________
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/20170324/dedad112/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Fri Mar 24 12:38:58 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:38:58 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tqpLXtbeshPL4vSwPW786PDtwe6apwPqympoSwMXGbiA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ayden,

Thanks for your comments, please I accept to be a signatory.

Kind Regards

Poncelet Ileleji

On 24 March 2017 at 08:32, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and
> commented in the document where I have not.
>
> I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are
> welcome to sign on, too].
>
> Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC members
> sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If it is not
> adopted, those who express their support on the list now will be named as
> signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on too. Thanks.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft. As
> you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
> specific about what those were.
>
> In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
> not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
> some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
> with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
> things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
> to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more
> diplomatic.
>
> I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> > The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
> > continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
> > on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable with it.
> >
> > Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
> > once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
> > endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
> > is a possible outcome.
> >
> > If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
> > it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
> > do so... :-)
> >
> > That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
> > be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not
> support.
> >
> > Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
> > much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
> > seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
> > 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
> > propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
> > constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
> > applicable.
> >
> > Ayden
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> > Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
> > Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> > To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> > <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
> > CC:
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
> >> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
> >> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had
> >> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
> >> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
> >> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
> >> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
> >>
> >> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that
> >> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
> >> rectifying this promptly.
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello PC
> >>>
> >>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
> >>> suggested inputs carefully.
> >>>
> >>> Related docs can be found here.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-
> report-2017-02-01-en
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
> >>> asap.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Matthew
> >>>
> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
> >>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
> >>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Greetings all,
> >>>
> >>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
> >>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-
> Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
> >>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
> >>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
> >>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
> >>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
> >>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
> >>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
> >>> take a read of the proposed statement here
> >>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-
> Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
> >>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
> >>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
> >>> mailing list!
> >>>
> >>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
> >>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
> >>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-
> review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF
> >>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
> >>>
> >>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
> >>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
> >>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
> >>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>>
> >>> Ayden F?rdeline
> >>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&
> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&
> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------
> >> Matthew Shears
> >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >> + 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


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






*www.ymca.gm <http://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/20170324/edd21e15/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Fri Mar 24 13:30:01 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:30:01 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
 Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
 <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <bae4779b-45a3-aa39-f3dd-d329fc4f92c5@cdt.org>

Morning

As of 23:59 last night there were no additional expressions of interest 
directly to me or on the list as far as I can see.

This means that the NCSG PC has to select three of the four following 
candidates for the Standing Selection Committee (SSC). The candidates are:

  * Rafik Dammak
    https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI
  * Poncelet Ileleji
    https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Poncelet+Ileleji+SOI
  * Ed Morris https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Edward+Morris+SOI
  * Kris Seeburn
    https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Kris+Seeburn+SOI

There are a number of ways we can decide who the members should be.   
One simple solution is to agree all, with one as an alternate (foreseen 
in the SSC outline doc.).

Alternatively, we could discuss and agree the criteria important to this 
role on this list and then try and hold a Skype call or similar to agree 
the slots (at the latest sometime Monday).

If PC members have other suggestions please reply all.  (We are of 
course supposed to decide by rough consensus as per the NCSG bylaws 
section 2.5.2 
https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf)

Please indicate your preferred way forward today.  Our deadline for 
communicating the names is Monday.

Many thanks.

Matthew

On 20/03/2017 22:49, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> We have three slots to fill.  So far we have three candidates who are 
> members of the PC including the PC Chair - Poncelet, Ed and Rafik - 
> and as far as I know they have appropriately recused themselves from 
> the process.
>
> A call has been made to the community for further nominations - the 
> deadline is Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>
> I suggest that the remainder of the PC be ready to assess the raft of 
> candidates on the 24th (including any potential new candidates) and 
> express their views on the list.  If we remain with the above three 
> our job is straightforward.  If we have additional candidates then we 
> may well have to vote.
>
> We have deadline of the 27th to communicate the names of our members.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 20/03/2017 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG 
>> GNSO Councilors are each a representative of _all_ NCSG members, not 
>> of specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this 
>> fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the 
>> _entire_ SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG. 
>>  This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I 
>> personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand 
>> the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for 
>> all of the NCSG.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent 
>>> <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been 
>>> a long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Martin Silva
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     hi all,
>>>
>>>     I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>     I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with
>>>     ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>
>>>     Best Regards,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>>>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>>>
>>>         Dear all,
>>>
>>>         See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>
>>>         Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>
>>>         Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>
>>>         Tapani
>>>
>>>         ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>         <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>>>
>>>
>>>         Dear All,
>>>
>>>         On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>         Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>         https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>         <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
>>>
>>>         The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>>         where
>>>         applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related
>>>         to the
>>>         selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>>         such as
>>>         ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>         Empowered
>>>         Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>         applicants/candidates,
>>>         3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>         recommendations for
>>>         review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections
>>>         to all
>>>         interested parties.
>>>
>>>         The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>
>>>         The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>         follows:
>>>         -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of
>>>         the Contracted Party House;
>>>         -          One member appointed respectively from each of
>>>         the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property
>>>         Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and
>>>         Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>         -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial
>>>         Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>         -          One member from one of the three
>>>         Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>
>>>         The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>         selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>         Directory
>>>         Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest
>>>         by its 20
>>>         April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked
>>>         the SSC
>>>         to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of
>>>         the GNSO
>>>         Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>         consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>
>>>         Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>         member(s) to
>>>         the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>         (gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
>>>         latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>>         Thursday 30
>>>         March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>
>>>         Best regards,
>>>
>>>         Marika Konings
>>>         Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>         Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>>         ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987

-- 
------------
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/20170324/352074b8/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Fri Mar 24 14:00:32 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:00:32 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>

Hi,

Thank you for accepting most of the edits.

I read through it again since I could not find the notes on the edits
you did not accept.  Found 2 more typos while doing it that I have
suggested edits for.

Also I see you retained:

> *We are hesitant to note - but feel an obligation to lay this fact on
> the table - that the NCSG accomplishes as much, if not more, than
> At-Large does, while receiving only a fraction of the support.*

to which I commented:

This is boastful, and unverifiable. I wonder if it is true. And wonder
what the metrics are for determining this.Also as pointed out a few
times in terms of budget, the ALC/At-Large is the equivalent,
organizationally of G-Council and GSNO. I think it adds nothing but
fight to the note. . If budgets and output are to be compared, that
would be a more appropriate comparison.Not that I recommend saying that
either.  It is not a competition.

In any case, as an observer, at this point will not object to this
comment as currently offered.

Avri

On 24-Mar-17 04:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and
> commented in the document where I have not. 
>
> I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are
> welcome to sign on, too]. 
>
> Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC
> members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If
> it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now
> will be named as signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on
> too. Thanks. 
>
> Best wishes,  
>
> Ayden 
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org
> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft. As
>> you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
>> specific about what those were.
>>
>> In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
>> not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
>> some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
>> with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
>> things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
>> to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more
>> diplomatic.
>>
>> I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> > The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
>> > continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
>> > on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable
>> with it.
>> >
>> > Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
>> > once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
>> > endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
>> > is a possible outcome.
>> >
>> > If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
>> > it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
>> > do so... :-)
>> >
>> > That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
>> > be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not
>> support.
>> >
>> > Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
>> > much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
>> > seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
>> > 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
>> > propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
>> > constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
>> > applicable.
>> >
>> > Ayden
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>> > Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
>> > Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> > To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> > <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> > <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> > CC:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all
>> >>
>> >> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>> >> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>> >> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had
>> >> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>> >> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
>> >> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
>> >> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>> >>
>> >> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that
>> >> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>> >> rectifying this promptly.
>> >>
>> >> Matthew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello PC
>> >>>
>> >>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
>> >>> suggested inputs carefully.
>> >>>
>> >>> Related docs can be found here.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
>> >>> asap.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Matthew
>> >>>
>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> >>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>> >>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>> >>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Greetings all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>> >>>
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>> >>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>> >>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>> >>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
>> >>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>> >>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
>> >>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
>> >>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>> >>>
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>
>> >>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
>> >>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
>> >>> mailing list!
>> >>>
>> >>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>> >>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>> >>>
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf>
>> (PDF
>> >>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>> >>>
>> >>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>> >>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
>> >>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
>> >>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>> >>>
>> >>> Best wishes,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> >>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> >>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ------------
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



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



From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 14:10:21 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:10:21 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
 <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>
Message-ID: <dU415w_Hoy1tb_A6rpSAthjl-El8iKp7dCv0UYVGuMLuP7jutZDeHITMrvBBF3z-BqX-1A2pTWAgmhP08ukOn1V2IXnbv82PqS2sFPEDCd8=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

In the budgetary questions document, I have sought to ascertain precisely what support At-Large receives (and the level of support provided to each stakeholder group in the GNSO), and in the comments you put forward your opposition to these metrics being requested in relation to At-Large. If we do not have metrics I accept that we cannot definitively say if we receive a fraction of the support that they do, so it will be useful to have the Finance department provide us with figures.

Personally, I do not see the sentence below as controversial and I do think the sentiment is accurate, if ineloquently put. If anyone has suggested wording for how that paragraph can be rephrased please do come forward with it. Thanks!

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:00 pm, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote: Hi,

Thank you for accepting most of the edits.

I read through it again since I could not find the notes on the edits
you did not accept. Found 2 more typos while doing it that I have
suggested edits for.

Also I see you retained:

> *We are hesitant to note - but feel an obligation to lay this fact on
> the table - that the NCSG accomplishes as much, if not more, than
> At-Large does, while receiving only a fraction of the support.*

to which I commented:

This is boastful, and unverifiable. I wonder if it is true. And wonder
what the metrics are for determining this.Also as pointed out a few
times in terms of budget, the ALC/At-Large is the equivalent,
organizationally of G-Council and GSNO. I think it adds nothing but
fight to the note. . If budgets and output are to be compared, that
would be a more appropriate comparison.Not that I recommend saying that
either. It is not a competition.

In any case, as an observer, at this point will not object to this
comment as currently offered.

Avri

On 24-Mar-17 04:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and
> commented in the document where I have not.
>
> I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are
> welcome to sign on, too].
>
> Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC
> members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If
> it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now
> will be named as signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on
> too. Thanks.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org
> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft. As
>> you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
>> specific about what those were.
>>
>> In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
>> not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
>> some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
>> with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
>> things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
>> to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more
>> diplomatic.
>>
>> I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> > The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
>> > continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
>> > on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable
>> with it.
>> >
>> > Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
>> > once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
>> > endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
>> > is a possible outcome.
>> >
>> > If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
>> > it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
>> > do so... :-)
>> >
>> > That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
>> > be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not
>> support.
>> >
>> > Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
>> > much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
>> > seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
>> > 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
>> > propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
>> > constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
>> > applicable.
>> >
>> > Ayden
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>> > Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
>> > Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> > To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> > <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> > <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> > CC:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all
>> >>
>> >> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>> >> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>> >> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had
>> >> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>> >> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
>> >> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
>> >> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>> >>
>> >> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that
>> >> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>> >> rectifying this promptly.
>> >>
>> >> Matthew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello PC
>> >>>
>> >>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
>> >>> suggested inputs carefully.
>> >>>
>> >>> Related docs can be found here.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
>> >>> asap.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Matthew
>> >>>
>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> >>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>> >>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>> >>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Greetings all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>> >>>
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>> >>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>> >>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>> >>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
>> >>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>> >>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
>> >>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
>> >>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>> >>>
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>
>> >>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
>> >>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
>> >>> mailing list!
>> >>>
>> >>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>> >>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>> >>>
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf>
>> (PDF
>> >>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>> >>>
>> >>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>> >>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
>> >>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
>> >>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>> >>>
>> >>> Best wishes,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> >>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> >>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ------------
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

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

_______________________________________________
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/20170324/60f3109d/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Fri Mar 24 14:32:21 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:32:21 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <dU415w_Hoy1tb_A6rpSAthjl-El8iKp7dCv0UYVGuMLuP7jutZDeHITMrvBBF3z-BqX-1A2pTWAgmhP08ukOn1V2IXnbv82PqS2sFPEDCd8=@ferdeline.com>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
 <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>
 <dU415w_Hoy1tb_A6rpSAthjl-El8iKp7dCv0UYVGuMLuP7jutZDeHITMrvBBF3z-BqX-1A2pTWAgmhP08ukOn1V2IXnbv82PqS2sFPEDCd8=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <b85accfd-ebcf-43c1-de97-8d146607f6d9@apc.org>

Hi,

In case it was not obvious, my suggestion is the deletion, not rewrite,
of the sentence.

Thank you

avri


On 24-Mar-17 08:10, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the budgetary questions document, I have sought to ascertain
> precisely what support At-Large receives (and the level of support
> provided to each stakeholder group in the GNSO), and in the
> comments you put forward your opposition to these metrics being
> requested in relation to At-Large. If we do not have metrics I accept
> that we cannot definitively say if we receive a fraction of the
> support that they do, so it will be useful to have the Finance
> department provide us with figures. 
>
> Personally, I do not see the sentence below as controversial and I do
> think the sentiment is accurate, if ineloquently put. If anyone has
> suggested wording for how that paragraph can be rephrased please do
> come forward with it. Thanks!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden 
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:00 pm, avri doria <avri at apc.org
> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you for accepting most of the edits.
>>
>> I read through it again since I could not find the notes on the edits
>> you did not accept. Found 2 more typos while doing it that I have
>> suggested edits for.
>>
>> Also I see you retained:
>>
>> > *We are hesitant to note - but feel an obligation to lay this fact on
>> > the table - that the NCSG accomplishes as much, if not more, than
>> > At-Large does, while receiving only a fraction of the support.*
>>
>> to which I commented:
>>
>> This is boastful, and unverifiable. I wonder if it is true. And wonder
>> what the metrics are for determining this.Also as pointed out a few
>> times in terms of budget, the ALC/At-Large is the equivalent,
>> organizationally of G-Council and GSNO. I think it adds nothing but
>> fight to the note. . If budgets and output are to be compared, that
>> would be a more appropriate comparison.Not that I recommend saying that
>> either. It is not a competition.
>>
>> In any case, as an observer, at this point will not object to this
>> comment as currently offered.
>>
>> Avri
>>
>> On 24-Mar-17 04:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> > Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and
>> > commented in the document where I have not.
>> >
>> > I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are
>> > welcome to sign on, too].
>> >
>> > Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC
>> > members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If
>> > it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now
>> > will be named as signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on
>> > too. Thanks.
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> >
>> > Ayden
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org
>> > <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first
>> draft. As
>> >> you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I
>> was
>> >> specific about what those were.
>> >>
>> >> In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for
>> me to
>> >> not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
>> >> some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
>> >> with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems
>> with are
>> >> things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an
>> objection
>> >> to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more
>> >> diplomatic.
>> >>
>> >> I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> avri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> >> > The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete.
>> I will
>> >> > continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share
>> feedback
>> >> > on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable
>> >> with it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had
>> tomorrow,
>> >> > once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
>> >> > endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand
>> that
>> >> > is a possible outcome.
>> >> >
>> >> > If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the
>> comments,
>> >> > it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel
>> free to
>> >> > do so... :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it
>> would
>> >> > be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not
>> >> support.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not
>> been
>> >> > much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented
>> process for
>> >> > seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer
>> than
>> >> > 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
>> >> > propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
>> >> > constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
>> >> > applicable.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ayden
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> > From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>> >> > Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
>> >> > Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> >> > To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> >> > <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline
>> <icann at ferdeline.com
>> >> > <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> >> > CC:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi all
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>> >> >> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>> >> >> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have
>> had
>> >> >> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>> >> >> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient
>> time to
>> >> >> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the
>> PC,
>> >> >> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring
>> that
>> >> >> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>> >> >> rectifying this promptly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Matthew
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hello PC
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
>> >> >>> suggested inputs carefully.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Related docs can be found here.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are
>> appreciated
>> >> >>> asap.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Matthew
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> >> >>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> >> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>> >> >>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>> >> >>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> >> >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Greetings all,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>> >> >>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>> >> >>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I
>> might have
>> >> >>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>> >> >>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get
>> some
>> >> >>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so
>> please
>> >> >>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>> with the understanding that it's definitely a
>> work-in-progress. And
>> >> >>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or
>> on this
>> >> >>> mailing list!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>> >> >>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf>
>>
>> >> (PDF
>> >> >>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>> >> >>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been
>> endorsed
>> >> >>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change
>> between
>> >> >>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Best wishes,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> >> >>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> ------------
>> >> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NCSG-PC mailing list
>> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 avri at apc.org  Fri Mar 24 14:35:11 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:35:11 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <b85accfd-ebcf-43c1-de97-8d146607f6d9@apc.org>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
 <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>
 <dU415w_Hoy1tb_A6rpSAthjl-El8iKp7dCv0UYVGuMLuP7jutZDeHITMrvBBF3z-BqX-1A2pTWAgmhP08ukOn1V2IXnbv82PqS2sFPEDCd8=@ferdeline.com>
 <b85accfd-ebcf-43c1-de97-8d146607f6d9@apc.org>
Message-ID: <8035fa5f-6d4d-e217-dc23-98855a083a98@apc.org>

PS.

In terms of metrics, I was not talking a budget received, I was
referencing the measurement of accomplishments.

How do we do that?

avri


On 24-Mar-17 08:32, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case it was not obvious, my suggestion is the deletion, not rewrite,
> of the sentence.
>
> Thank you
>
> avri
>
>
> On 24-Mar-17 08:10, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the budgetary questions document, I have sought to ascertain
>> precisely what support At-Large receives (and the level of support
>> provided to each stakeholder group in the GNSO), and in the
>> comments you put forward your opposition to these metrics being
>> requested in relation to At-Large. If we do not have metrics I accept
>> that we cannot definitively say if we receive a fraction of the
>> support that they do, so it will be useful to have the Finance
>> department provide us with figures. 
>>
>> Personally, I do not see the sentence below as controversial and I do
>> think the sentiment is accurate, if ineloquently put. If anyone has
>> suggested wording for how that paragraph can be rephrased please do
>> come forward with it. Thanks!
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden 
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:00 pm, avri doria <avri at apc.org
>> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thank you for accepting most of the edits.
>>>
>>> I read through it again since I could not find the notes on the edits
>>> you did not accept. Found 2 more typos while doing it that I have
>>> suggested edits for.
>>>
>>> Also I see you retained:
>>>
>>>> *We are hesitant to note - but feel an obligation to lay this fact on
>>>> the table - that the NCSG accomplishes as much, if not more, than
>>>> At-Large does, while receiving only a fraction of the support.*
>>> to which I commented:
>>>
>>> This is boastful, and unverifiable. I wonder if it is true. And wonder
>>> what the metrics are for determining this.Also as pointed out a few
>>> times in terms of budget, the ALC/At-Large is the equivalent,
>>> organizationally of G-Council and GSNO. I think it adds nothing but
>>> fight to the note. . If budgets and output are to be compared, that
>>> would be a more appropriate comparison.Not that I recommend saying that
>>> either. It is not a competition.
>>>
>>> In any case, as an observer, at this point will not object to this
>>> comment as currently offered.
>>>
>>> Avri
>>>
>>> On 24-Mar-17 04:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and
>>>> commented in the document where I have not.
>>>>
>>>> I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are
>>>> welcome to sign on, too].
>>>>
>>>> Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC
>>>> members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If
>>>> it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now
>>>> will be named as signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on
>>>> too. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first
>>> draft. As
>>>>> you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I
>>> was
>>>>> specific about what those were.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for
>>> me to
>>>>> not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
>>>>> some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
>>>>> with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems
>>> with are
>>>>> things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an
>>> objection
>>>>> to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more
>>>>> diplomatic.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>> The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete.
>>> I will
>>>>>> continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share
>>> feedback
>>>>>> on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable
>>>>> with it.
>>>>>> Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had
>>> tomorrow,
>>>>>> once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
>>>>>> endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand
>>> that
>>>>>> is a possible outcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the
>>> comments,
>>>>>> it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel
>>> free to
>>>>>> do so... :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it
>>> would
>>>>>> be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not
>>>>> support.
>>>>>> Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not
>>> been
>>>>>> much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented
>>> process for
>>>>>> seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer
>>> than
>>>>>> 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
>>>>>> propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
>>>>>> constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
>>>>>> applicable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>>>>>> Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>>>>>> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline
>>> <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>> CC:
>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>>>>>>> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>>>>>>> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have
>>> had
>>>>>>> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>>>>>>> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient
>>> time to
>>>>>>> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the
>>> PC,
>>>>>>> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring
>>> that
>>>>>>> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>>>>>>> rectifying this promptly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello PC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
>>>>>>>> suggested inputs carefully.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Related docs can be found here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are
>>> appreciated
>>>>>>>> asap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>>>>>>>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greetings all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>>>>>>>>
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>
>>>>>>>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>>>>>>>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>>>>>>>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I
>>> might have
>>>>>>>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>>>>>>>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get
>>> some
>>>>>>>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so
>>> please
>>>>>>>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>>>>>>>>
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>>
>>>>>>>> with the understanding that it's definitely a
>>> work-in-progress. And
>>>>>>>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or
>>> on this
>>>>>>>> mailing list!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>>>>>>>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>>>>>>>>
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf>
>>>
>>>>> (PDF
>>>>>>>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>>>>>>>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been
>>> endorsed
>>>>>>>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change
>>> between
>>>>>>>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 17:07:34 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:07:34 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Proposed Statement on ALAC Review
Message-ID: <BssV8h8-MWHCPpBGxSNIJbuPNRt29YP3T4zzAgs1zfrns8Hn_mC-pw6Y1yeGoTuAyJtHuEEK_iNyrBMOgDLMQcE4aHENfU7Q0ffFDOHoxXE=@ferdeline.com>

Sorry to pester, but the deadline is today.

Please read through the proposed statement on the ALAC Review and indicate whether or not you support the NCSG submitting it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s

At present, endorsements have been received on and off-list from Poncelet, Ed, and myself.

There is still time for last-minute edits if you propose alternative wording. If you will not be endorsing the statement, please provide a rationale, because unless I am misinterpreting it, section 2.5.2 of the NCSG bylaws requires that we record in the statement any minority opinions from NCSG PC members.

Thank you,

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/2893fbc6/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar 24 17:08:37 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:08:37 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <2afb0c8c-b560-3d1e-6d3d-326dedbbc2b6@mail.utoronto.ca>

I support.

Steph


On 2017-03-24 04:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and 
> commented in the document where I have not.
>
> I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are 
> welcome to sign on, too].
>
> Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC 
> members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If 
> it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now 
> will be named as signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on 
> too. Thanks.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org 
> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft. As
>> you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
>> specific about what those were.
>>
>> In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
>> not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
>> some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
>> with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
>> things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
>> to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more 
>> diplomatic.
>>
>> I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> > The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
>> > continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
>> > on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable 
>> with it.
>> >
>> > Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
>> > once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
>> > endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
>> > is a possible outcome.
>> >
>> > If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
>> > it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
>> > do so... :-)
>> >
>> > That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
>> > be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not 
>> support.
>> >
>> > Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
>> > much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
>> > seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
>> > 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
>> > propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
>> > constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
>> > applicable.
>> >
>> > Ayden
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>> > Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
>> > Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> > To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> > <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> > <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> > CC:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all
>> >>
>> >> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>> >> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>> >> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had
>> >> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>> >> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
>> >> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
>> >> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>> >>
>> >> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that
>> >> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>> >> rectifying this promptly.
>> >>
>> >> Matthew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello PC
>> >>>
>> >>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
>> >>> suggested inputs carefully.
>> >>>
>> >>> Related docs can be found here.
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en 
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
>> >>> asap.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Matthew
>> >>>
>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> >>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>> >>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>> >>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Greetings all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>> >>> 
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing> 
>>
>> >>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>> >>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>> >>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
>> >>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>> >>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
>> >>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
>> >>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>> >>> 
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>, 
>>
>> >>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
>> >>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
>> >>> mailing list!
>> >>>
>> >>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>> >>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>> >>> 
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> 
>> (PDF
>> >>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>> >>>
>> >>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>> >>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
>> >>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
>> >>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>> >>>
>> >>> Best wishes,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> >>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>
>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> >>> 
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ------------
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/e1b9365e/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar 24 17:15:03 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:15:03 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
 <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1f82700e-c1a2-8acc-c9ae-5347efe3f289@mail.utoronto.ca>

I tend to agree with Avri and is not really a useful comment on the 
paper, is it?

No point in starting a war with an inflammatory comment IMHO.

cheers Steph


On 2017-03-24 08:00, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for accepting most of the edits.
>
> I read through it again since I could not find the notes on the edits
> you did not accept.  Found 2 more typos while doing it that I have
> suggested edits for.
>
> Also I see you retained:
>
>> *We are hesitant to note - but feel an obligation to lay this fact on
>> the table - that the NCSG accomplishes as much, if not more, than
>> At-Large does, while receiving only a fraction of the support.*
> to which I commented:
>
> This is boastful, and unverifiable. I wonder if it is true. And wonder
> what the metrics are for determining this.Also as pointed out a few
> times in terms of budget, the ALC/At-Large is the equivalent,
> organizationally of G-Council and GSNO. I think it adds nothing but
> fight to the note. . If budgets and output are to be compared, that
> would be a more appropriate comparison.Not that I recommend saying that
> either.  It is not a competition.
>
> In any case, as an observer, at this point will not object to this
> comment as currently offered.
>
> Avri
>
> On 24-Mar-17 04:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and
>> commented in the document where I have not.
>>
>> I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are
>> welcome to sign on, too].
>>
>> Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC
>> members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If
>> it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now
>> will be named as signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on
>> too. Thanks.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org
>> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft. As
>>> you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
>>> specific about what those were.
>>>
>>> In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
>>> not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
>>> some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
>>> with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
>>> things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
>>> to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more
>>> diplomatic.
>>>
>>> I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>> The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
>>>> continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
>>>> on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable
>>> with it.
>>>> Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
>>>> once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
>>>> endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
>>>> is a possible outcome.
>>>>
>>>> If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
>>>> it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
>>>> do so... :-)
>>>>
>>>> That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
>>>> be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not
>>> support.
>>>> Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
>>>> much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
>>>> seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
>>>> 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
>>>> propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
>>>> constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
>>>> applicable.
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>>>> Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>>>> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>> CC:
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>>>>> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>>>>> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had
>>>>> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>>>>> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
>>>>> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
>>>>> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that
>>>>> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>>>>> rectifying this promptly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>>> Hello PC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
>>>>>> suggested inputs carefully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Related docs can be found here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
>>>>>> asap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>>>>>> From: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>>>>>>
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>
>>>>>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>>>>>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>>>>>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
>>>>>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>>>>>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
>>>>>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
>>>>>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>>>>>>
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>>
>>>>>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
>>>>>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
>>>>>> mailing list!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>>>>>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>>>>>>
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf>
>>> (PDF
>>>>>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>>>>>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
>>>>>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
>>>>>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>>>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170324/7a3b77b6/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 17:17:58 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:17:58 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Budget Questions
Message-ID: <VxmE4Yz5S9UEOeUHX3F0FTRU0oCADR7Tk4yc7I5oEgVwLO5J-hVLdkatS3wzwbXBtsee3Aa3lkmpDPazb2Ar1QGXc0DG5m9dWkxPFB3h26g=@ferdeline.com>

Just following up - FY18 Budget questions need to be sent off today. Please consider editing the below document, adding missing questions, and expressing your support or lack thereof on the list... thanks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

- Ayden

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:09 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Please try to submit comments or additional questions regarding the FY18 Budget ASAP. We need to send this off tomorrow. If you otherwise support these questions being asked, please also indicate support on-list. Thank you!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:22 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
Okay, so here are the seven questions I have re: the FY-18 budget. More might come in time. Please feel free to edit, add more, etc. We need to submit these by Friday...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks,
Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/56c9bb44/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar 24 17:21:10 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:21:10 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <dU415w_Hoy1tb_A6rpSAthjl-El8iKp7dCv0UYVGuMLuP7jutZDeHITMrvBBF3z-BqX-1A2pTWAgmhP08ukOn1V2IXnbv82PqS2sFPEDCd8=@ferdeline.com>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
 <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>
 <dU415w_Hoy1tb_A6rpSAthjl-El8iKp7dCv0UYVGuMLuP7jutZDeHITMrvBBF3z-BqX-1A2pTWAgmhP08ukOn1V2IXnbv82PqS2sFPEDCd8=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <7dcec1d6-8ea2-f0a8-1fdc-f13e7b426a23@mail.utoronto.ca>

How about this, see below


On 2017-03-24 08:10, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> > *We are hesitant to comment on the comparison of results between 
> ALAC and NCSG, particularly because of the disparity in resources 
> allocated by ICANN, and the different missions. However, we do feel 
> that we produce measurable impacts on policy with significantly less 
> resources.  If ALAC proposes to play a larger role in policy, it would 
> be beneficial to discuss how and where, and perhaps some of our 
> experience in doing lots with less may be useful. We would also like 
> to avoid duplication of missions, and further confusion among new 
> recruits and fellows attracted to ICANN, so clarity of roles remains a 
> priority.


> note - but feel an obligation to lay this fact on
> > the table - that the NCSG accomplishes as much, if not more, than
> > At-Large does, while receiving only a fraction of the support.* 
Stephanie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/d93ce2fb/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Mar 24 17:22:43 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:22:43 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Proposed Statement on ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <BssV8h8-MWHCPpBGxSNIJbuPNRt29YP3T4zzAgs1zfrns8Hn_mC-pw6Y1yeGoTuAyJtHuEEK_iNyrBMOgDLMQcE4aHENfU7Q0ffFDOHoxXE=@ferdeline.com>
References: <BssV8h8-MWHCPpBGxSNIJbuPNRt29YP3T4zzAgs1zfrns8Hn_mC-pw6Y1yeGoTuAyJtHuEEK_iNyrBMOgDLMQcE4aHENfU7Q0ffFDOHoxXE=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <2b5d7aef-9b0e-6fb7-9015-60a0635b51eb@mail.utoronto.ca>

and me

Steph


On 2017-03-24 11:07, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Sorry to pester, but the deadline is today.
>
> Please read through the proposed statement on the ALAC Review and 
> indicate whether or not you support the NCSG submitting it.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s 
>
>
> At present, endorsements have been received on and off-list from 
> Poncelet, Ed, and myself.
>
> There is still time for last-minute edits if you propose alternative 
> wording. If you will not be endorsing the statement, please provide a 
> rationale, because unless I am misinterpreting it, section 2.5.2 of 
> the NCSG bylaws requires that we record in the statement any minority 
> opinions from NCSG PC members.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/8cdfc810/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 17:24:29 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:24:29 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <7dcec1d6-8ea2-f0a8-1fdc-f13e7b426a23@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <qb3XQ7Tb69ux6kGNDPJPZT8QovWmZgRfwW9WO1oK57fqmaFra0dJnzt5FxmKJBGdnqSr9zsG10jTCZhWecHopcI_SyAtJoILtrBDAMtNZuo=@ferdeline.com>
 <4ad13433-0099-ab0e-20c8-25eeb85e7bbf@apc.org>
 <dU415w_Hoy1tb_A6rpSAthjl-El8iKp7dCv0UYVGuMLuP7jutZDeHITMrvBBF3z-BqX-1A2pTWAgmhP08ukOn1V2IXnbv82PqS2sFPEDCd8=@ferdeline.com>
 <7dcec1d6-8ea2-f0a8-1fdc-f13e7b426a23@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <0iai4TojXPsX3oOAFItt4Ka06WwCDy4rQzrNDZdtXJ0b-2eY86Ujp8O0CpXBp2dq6hY0yB-3w2NOc6_yz_5N8cdT_ERobm7fWRqh8H4SCQA=@ferdeline.com>

Thank you. I think that is an excellent addition that removes some of the unintended hostility from the original text. I will add it to the document now.

Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:21 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

How about this, see below

On 2017-03-24 08:10, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> *We are hesitant to comment on the comparison of results between ALAC and NCSG, particularly because of the disparity in resources allocated by ICANN, and the different missions. However, we do feel that we produce measurable impacts on policy with significantly less resources. If ALAC proposes to play a larger role in policy, it would be beneficial to discuss how and where, and perhaps some of our experience in doing lots with less may be useful. We would also like to avoid duplication of missions, and further confusion among new recruits and fellows attracted to ICANN, so clarity of roles remains a priority.

note - but feel an obligation to lay this fact on
> the table - that the NCSG accomplishes as much, if not more, than
> At-Large does, while receiving only a fraction of the support.* Stephanie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/e6b529ad/attachment.htm>

From robin at ipjustice.org  Fri Mar 24 17:51:12 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:51:12 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for confirmation of members - GNSO Standing
	Selection Committee
In-Reply-To: <bae4779b-45a3-aa39-f3dd-d329fc4f92c5@cdt.org>
References: <20170316135315.hskzkdkzf2sl2n24@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=Tw=V-4jCDh9EeTLMS88jKUoCX26V0-=MhJ8WtJE2OjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJjnsDHT8ymN7OWD1Tc2DrOG1koixXzbb1fk4R-SsLA79A-fKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4C2EF55-0FAB-47DA-B9D5-77669FBABED7@ipjustice.org>
 <775c3295-b039-68a1-4940-098e10532bce@cdt.org>
 <bae4779b-45a3-aa39-f3dd-d329fc4f92c5@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <7D5BB05D-67EE-4581-BEDD-89A26E99FF73@ipjustice.org>

It was my understanding that Renata also applied for this, although she was traveling yesterday, so her email may not have gotten through.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 4:30 AM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Morning
> 
> As of 23:59 last night there were no additional expressions of interest directly to me or on the list as far as I can see.
> 
> This means that the NCSG PC has to select three of the four following candidates for the Standing Selection Committee (SSC).  The candidates are:
> 
> Rafik Dammak https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI>
> Poncelet Ileleji https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Poncelet+Ileleji+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Poncelet+Ileleji+SOI>
> Ed Morris https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Edward+Morris+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Edward+Morris+SOI>
> Kris Seeburn https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Kris+Seeburn+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Kris+Seeburn+SOI>
> There are a number of ways we can decide who the members should be.   One simple solution is to agree all, with one as an alternate (foreseen in the SSC outline doc.).
> Alternatively, we could discuss and agree the criteria important to this role on this list and then try and hold a Skype call or similar to agree the slots (at the latest sometime Monday).
> 
> If PC members have other suggestions please reply all.  (We are of course supposed to decide by rough consensus as per the NCSG bylaws section 2.5.2 https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf>)
> Please indicate your preferred way forward today.  Our deadline for communicating the names is Monday.
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 20/03/2017 22:49, matthew shears wrote:
>> Hi all
>> 
>> We have three slots to fill.  So far we have three candidates who are members of the PC including the PC Chair - Poncelet, Ed and Rafik - and as far as I know they have appropriately recused themselves from the process.
>> 
>> A call has been made to the community for further nominations - the deadline is Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.   
>> I suggest that the remainder of the PC be ready to assess the raft of candidates on the 24th (including any potential new candidates) and express their views on the list.  If we remain with the above three our job is straightforward.  If we have additional candidates then we may well have to vote.
>> 
>> We have deadline of the 27th to communicate the names of our members.
>> 
>> Does this make sense?
>> 
>> Matthew
>> 
>> 
>> On 20/03/2017 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> Thanks, Martin, but I?m a bit puzzled by your response.  All NCSG GNSO Councilors are each a representative of all NCSG members, not of specific constituencies, and it is important you understand this fundamental responsibility of an NCSG GNSO Representative - to the entire SG membership if you are to serve on the council for the SG.  This is not meant to take away from the NPOC endorsement, which I personally support, just to be sure you as a new councilor understand the nature of your role on the GNSO Council as a representative for all of the NCSG.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all, 
>>>> I confirm that NPOCs will support Poncelet's nomination. He is been a long time in icann and has high moral sense of integrity.  
>>>> 
>>>> Best, 
>>>> Martin Silva 
>>>> 
>>>> On 17 Mar 2017 08:06, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I will be glad to volunteer for the SSC.
>>>> I had experience in selection, reviewing applications etc with ICANN nomcom when I was NCUC representative there.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 2017-03-16 22:53 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>> 
>>>> Deadline is March 27 - there's not much time.
>>>> 
>>>> Suggestions, volunteers?
>>>> 
>>>> Tapani
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.
>>>> 
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>> interested parties.
>>>> 
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>> -          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>>> -          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>> -          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>> -          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>> 
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> 
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>	Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> -- 
>> ------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987
> 
> -- 
> ------------
> 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/20170324/a70fe24b/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Fri Mar 24 18:23:23 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:23:23 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday 
and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we 
should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now 
with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" 
approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the 
selection process.  Thoughts welcome.

Matthew



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Interest in GNSO SSC
Date: 	Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
From: 	Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
To: 	Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>



Dear Matthew

I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO 
Standing Selection Committee.

I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the 
GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as 
coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.

I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such 
as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.

This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams 
and appointments and also to help other community members who want to 
get more involved to find their way into GNSO.

My SOI
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI

I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive 
it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this 
week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time 
for this application.

Thanks


Date:    Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
From:    Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO 
<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>>
Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine 
<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----


Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] 
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>>.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
-          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the 
Contracted Party House;
-          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business 
Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet 
Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
-          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder 
Group; and,
-          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee 
appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
(gnso-secs at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation 
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/501cc44e/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Fri Mar 24 18:26:42 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:26:42 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>,
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521495558DE7D2C3A4DAC0CF73E0@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Matt, everyone
tentative criteria:

- familiarity with ICANN workings, and in particular GNSO working procedures/structure... (add)
- experience in selection of candidates in similar (or other) selection processes
...

Please ass. this is just to get the ball rolling
St


________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Inviato: venerd? 24 marzo 2017 17.23.23
A: ncsg-pc
Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.  Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process.  Thoughts welcome.

Matthew


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Interest in GNSO SSC
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
From:   Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>
To:     Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>


Dear Matthew

I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.

I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.

This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.

My SOI
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI

I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.

Thanks


Date:    Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
From:    Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>>
Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> -----


Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
-          One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
-          One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
-          Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
-          One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
(gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)> by 27 March at the
latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

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 icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 18:33:17 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:33:17 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>

My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?

- Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:	Interest in GNSO SSC
Date:	Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
From:	Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
To:	Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)

Dear Matthew

I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.

I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.

This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.

My SOI
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI

I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.

Thanks

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----

Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= >.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
(gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))> by 27 March at the
latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/9713cfc3/attachment.htm>

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Fri Mar 24 20:01:39 2017
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:01:39 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Proposed Statement on ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <2b5d7aef-9b0e-6fb7-9015-60a0635b51eb@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <BssV8h8-MWHCPpBGxSNIJbuPNRt29YP3T4zzAgs1zfrns8Hn_mC-pw6Y1yeGoTuAyJtHuEEK_iNyrBMOgDLMQcE4aHENfU7Q0ffFDOHoxXE=@ferdeline.com>
 <2b5d7aef-9b0e-6fb7-9015-60a0635b51eb@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <082f2d1a-a5b8-6b10-d915-117fa08dbbbc@kathykleiman.com>

Looks good to me (albeit being an Observer). Tx to Ayden for taking the 
lead - and all for editing!

Kathy


On 3/24/2017 11:22 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> and me
>
> Steph
>
>
> On 2017-03-24 11:07, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> Sorry to pester, but the deadline is today.
>>
>> Please read through the proposed statement on the ALAC Review and 
>> indicate whether or not you support the NCSG submitting it.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s 
>>
>>
>> At present, endorsements have been received on and off-list from 
>> Poncelet, Ed, and myself.
>>
>> There is still time for last-minute edits if you propose alternative 
>> wording. If you will not be endorsing the statement, please provide a 
>> rationale, because unless I am misinterpreting it, section 2.5.2 of 
>> the NCSG bylaws requires that we record in the statement any minority 
>> opinions from NCSG PC members.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/0ebacb4a/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 22:38:29 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:38:29 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Budget Questions
In-Reply-To: <VxmE4Yz5S9UEOeUHX3F0FTRU0oCADR7Tk4yc7I5oEgVwLO5J-hVLdkatS3wzwbXBtsee3Aa3lkmpDPazb2Ar1QGXc0DG5m9dWkxPFB3h26g=@ferdeline.com>
References: <VxmE4Yz5S9UEOeUHX3F0FTRU0oCADR7Tk4yc7I5oEgVwLO5J-hVLdkatS3wzwbXBtsee3Aa3lkmpDPazb2Ar1QGXc0DG5m9dWkxPFB3h26g=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <bS3_10As2KrzV1Q98XRn_QAoI3b8SOvQYFbYBX7cg7cekbJblRdY5gsLcFVtCVtWq2mBZHpWoW-g7W8Q8P7SBHISr1jWLcLGXv9GQm9Hc10=@ferdeline.com>

I will be emailing the FY-18 Budget questions to the Finance department in 30 minutes unless I hear objections otherwise.

Best,
Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:17 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote: Just following up - FY18 Budget questions need to be sent off today. Please consider editing the below document, adding missing questions, and expressing your support or lack thereof on the list... thanks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

- Ayden

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:09 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Please try to submit comments or additional questions regarding the FY18 Budget ASAP. We need to send this off tomorrow. If you otherwise support these questions being asked, please also indicate support on-list. Thank you!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:22 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
Okay, so here are the seven questions I have re: the FY-18 budget. More might come in time. Please feel free to edit, add more, etc. We need to submit these by Friday...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks,
Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/8bf783c2/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Mar 24 22:51:11 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:51:11 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC
 Review
In-Reply-To: <PK013UuYvQrqHX8C5NkatNYAfsVz1tF3KcfIzJFGMazhvz06rhmvqlqjaME0XXVapZ-odenQKpHr9b5gnA9P4dwjWQdK6ARzPmVHCvT44YU=@ferdeline.com>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
 <d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <4268b6fd-2c37-683e-8281-b81db39e100e@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <PK013UuYvQrqHX8C5NkatNYAfsVz1tF3KcfIzJFGMazhvz06rhmvqlqjaME0XXVapZ-odenQKpHr9b5gnA9P4dwjWQdK6ARzPmVHCvT44YU=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <20170324205110.updbqkjfvvlq6dj3@roller.tarvainen.info>

Not perfect but good enough for me.

Thanks for the work you've put in this, Ayden.

Tapani

On Mar 23 22:01, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:

> Thank you for the kind words, Stephanie, and for the helpful edits. A new draft of the proposed statement is now available. It would be appreciated if everyone could please review it, and propose alternative text if and where applicable. This is a very different document than you may have reviewed a few hours ago.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ayden
> 
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:24 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> ANd I forgot to say, many thanks to Ayden for slogging away on this!! the report was a beast to get through, and pulling this together a hard task. Don't worry I think we can still get a shorter perhaps comment if a few of us can pull together and put in some comments. Dont everybody disappear tomorrow on a Friday break....
> 
> Stephanie
> 
> On 2017-03-23 20:20, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> 
> I just spent some time commenting. I would suggest that we keep working on them, try to develop a more positive tone that indicates our shared experience.....but we are not going to get people to sign up for drafting comments if we reject them. Folks are always going to be too busy to engage in a fulsome discussion.
> 
> Happy to hear about a better process....but in the meantime, better to fix this and boil it down to a couple of pages we can agree on than to give up, in my view....
> 
> cheers Stephanie
> 
> PS I think you used the old address so I included the new one....
> 
> On 2017-03-23 18:27, matthew shears wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, can endorse these comments for NCSG.
> 
> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be rectifying this promptly.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
> 
> Hello PC
> 
> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these suggested inputs carefully.
> 
> Related docs can be found here.
> 
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
> 
> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	[DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> Date:	Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
> From:	Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at FERDELINE.COM>](mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM)
> Reply-To:	Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
> To:	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> 
> Greetings all,
> 
> I have drafted up [on Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing) some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a read of the [proposed statement here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing), with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this mailing list!
> 
> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this together unfortunately. You can [read the draft report here](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf) (PDF link) if you haven't seen it already.
> 
> A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted).
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden F?rdeline
> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
> 
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
> 
> --
> ------------
> 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

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



From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 23:06:47 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:06:47 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC
	Review
In-Reply-To: <20170324205110.updbqkjfvvlq6dj3@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
 <d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <4268b6fd-2c37-683e-8281-b81db39e100e@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <PK013UuYvQrqHX8C5NkatNYAfsVz1tF3KcfIzJFGMazhvz06rhmvqlqjaME0XXVapZ-odenQKpHr9b5gnA9P4dwjWQdK6ARzPmVHCvT44YU=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170324205110.updbqkjfvvlq6dj3@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <7mC4YzPjUbF7K8DMyVTmKeEoV5bNd88Pcxe0bmeAB6bKtxRnBQ0O-cR3JfV71sRDGHtqXRjmpzRQiv9IaSbKQ-0RwSOk9S-B8b0pWqbvmF4=@ferdeline.com>

I don't quite like the final document either - but we are all equally unhappy with it, it seems :-)

Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: Not perfect but good enough for me.

Thanks for the work you've put in this, Ayden.

Tapani

On Mar 23 22:01, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:

> Thank you for the kind words, Stephanie, and for the helpful edits. A new draft of the proposed statement is now available. It would be appreciated if everyone could please review it, and propose alternative text if and where applicable. This is a very different document than you may have reviewed a few hours ago.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s
>
> Best,
>
> Ayden
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:24 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> ANd I forgot to say, many thanks to Ayden for slogging away on this!! the report was a beast to get through, and pulling this together a hard task. Don't worry I think we can still get a shorter perhaps comment if a few of us can pull together and put in some comments. Dont everybody disappear tomorrow on a Friday break....
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-03-23 20:20, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I just spent some time commenting. I would suggest that we keep working on them, try to develop a more positive tone that indicates our shared experience.....but we are not going to get people to sign up for drafting comments if we reject them. Folks are always going to be too busy to engage in a fulsome discussion.
>
> Happy to hear about a better process....but in the meantime, better to fix this and boil it down to a couple of pages we can agree on than to give up, in my view....
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
> PS I think you used the old address so I included the new one....
>
> On 2017-03-23 18:27, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>
> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be rectifying this promptly.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hello PC
>
> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these suggested inputs carefully.
>
> Related docs can be found here.
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>
> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
> From: Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at FERDELINE.COM>](mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM)
> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I have drafted up [on Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing) some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a read of the [proposed statement here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing), with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this mailing list!
>
> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this together unfortunately. You can [read the draft report here](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf) (PDF link) if you haven't seen it already.
>
> A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
>
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
>
> --
> ------------
> 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

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

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/c2ec5cf2/attachment.htm>

From egmorris1 at toast.net  Fri Mar 24 23:15:36 2017
From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:15:36 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC
	Review
In-Reply-To: <7mC4YzPjUbF7K8DMyVTmKeEoV5bNd88Pcxe0bmeAB6bKtxRnBQ0O-cR3JfV71sRDGHtqXRjmpzRQiv9IaSbKQ-0RwSOk9S-B8b0pWqbvmF4=@ferdeline.com>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
 <d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <4268b6fd-2c37-683e-8281-b81db39e100e@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <PK013UuYvQrqHX8C5NkatNYAfsVz1tF3KcfIzJFGMazhvz06rhmvqlqjaME0XXVapZ-odenQKpHr9b5gnA9P4dwjWQdK6ARzPmVHCvT44YU=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170324205110.updbqkjfvvlq6dj3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <7mC4YzPjUbF7K8DMyVTmKeEoV5bNd88Pcxe0bmeAB6bKtxRnBQ0O-cR3JfV71sRDGHtqXRjmpzRQiv9IaSbKQ-0RwSOk9S-B8b0pWqbvmF4=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <08004E5B-0E98-41D8-BF00-166356179059@toast.net>

Ayden,

I echo Tapani's comments. Thank you for your exemplary work on this.

I support submitting this as a NCSG comment but note that I preferred your initial draft to the one we are submitting. Nevertheless I do believe the final draft does reflect an appropriate compromise between the  diverse views within the NCSG and is worthy of submission. Well done.

A shout out and thanks as well  to McTim for his hard work on the Review itself.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Mar 2017, at 14:07, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't quite like the final document either - but we are all equally unhappy with it, it seems :-)
> 
> Ayden 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>> Not perfect but good enough for me. 
>> 
>> Thanks for the work you've put in this, Ayden. 
>> 
>> Tapani 
>> 
>> On Mar 23 22:01, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote: 
>> 
>> > Thank you for the kind words, Stephanie, and for the helpful edits. A new draft of the proposed statement is now available. It would be appreciated if everyone could please review it, and propose alternative text if and where applicable. This is a very different document than you may have reviewed a few hours ago. 
>> > 
>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s 
>> > 
>> > Best, 
>> > 
>> > Ayden 
>> > 
>> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:24 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > ANd I forgot to say, many thanks to Ayden for slogging away on this!! the report was a beast to get through, and pulling this together a hard task. Don't worry I think we can still get a shorter perhaps comment if a few of us can pull together and put in some comments. Dont everybody disappear tomorrow on a Friday break.... 
>> > 
>> > Stephanie 
>> > 
>> > On 2017-03-23 20:20, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 
>> > 
>> > I just spent some time commenting. I would suggest that we keep working on them, try to develop a more positive tone that indicates our shared experience.....but we are not going to get people to sign up for drafting comments if we reject them. Folks are always going to be too busy to engage in a fulsome discussion. 
>> > 
>> > Happy to hear about a better process....but in the meantime, better to fix this and boil it down to a couple of pages we can agree on than to give up, in my view.... 
>> > 
>> > cheers Stephanie 
>> > 
>> > PS I think you used the old address so I included the new one.... 
>> > 
>> > On 2017-03-23 18:27, matthew shears wrote: 
>> > 
>> > Hi all 
>> > 
>> > I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, can endorse these comments for NCSG.         
>> > 
>> > The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be rectifying this promptly. 
>> > 
>> > Matthew 
>> > 
>> > On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote: 
>> > 
>> > Hello PC 
>> > 
>> > Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these suggested inputs carefully. 
>> > 
>> > Related docs can be found here. 
>> > 
>> > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en 
>> > 
>> > Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap. 
>> > 
>> > Thanks. 
>> > 
>> > Matthew 
>> > 
>> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- 
>> > Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review 
>> > Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400 
>> > From: Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at FERDELINE.COM>](mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM) 
>> > Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com) 
>> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
>> > 
>> > Greetings all, 
>> > 
>> > I have drafted up [on Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing) some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a read of the [proposed statement here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing), with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this mailing list! 
>> > 
>> > Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this together unfortunately. You can [read the draft report here](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf) (PDF link) if you haven't seen it already. 
>> > 
>> > A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted). 
>> > 
>> > Best wishes, 
>> > 
>> > Ayden F?rdeline 
>> > [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) 
>> > 
>> > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient) 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > ------------ 
>> > 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 
>> 
>> > _______________________________________________ 
>> > NCSG-PC mailing list 
>> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is 
>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> NCSG-PC mailing list 
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is 
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/7ff1068b/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 24 23:53:47 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:53:47 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [FINAL] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review
Message-ID: <_byOw2LB3kba7W8RDbw4_VQSAMb0gaaESV1tvRVVt29tiK4Sd6VFwtUlPQBgRGJDlmp9y92XQHR5AzD8ValpKcPIP-Cq3eX19u_9qExuMNE=@ferdeline.com>

All,

Please find attached the final version of our statement on the ALAC Review. I will be submitting this shortly.

This statement has received support from the following PC members (in alphabetical order):
Ayden, Ed, Martin, Poncelet, Stephanie, Tapani

And the following observers:
Avri, Farzi, Kathy, Milton

I apologise if I have missed anyone. It may not be the statement that any of us wanted to submit (for various reasons), but I am glad we were ultimately able to come together and to submit these comments.

Best wishes,

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/37019374/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGStatement-ALACReview.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 112378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/37019374/attachment.pdf>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Mar 25 00:31:21 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 07:31:21 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [FINAL] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkCuBrMxxuKpjOD0xVTWpUn6VoyN-uVtyRKMFcMny0MHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <_byOw2LB3kba7W8RDbw4_VQSAMb0gaaESV1tvRVVt29tiK4Sd6VFwtUlPQBgRGJDlmp9y92XQHR5AzD8ValpKcPIP-Cq3eX19u_9qExuMNE=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkCuBrMxxuKpjOD0xVTWpUn6VoyN-uVtyRKMFcMny0MHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=04UDS9c3V+wUQw3ipE8WM4c5u+GMs3phhp+-2QDLiKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

With all effort to resolve comments and concerns, I think I can vote yes
for the final version.

Best,

Rafik


On Mar 24, 2017 10:54 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

All,

Please find attached the final version of our statement on the ALAC Review.
I will be submitting this shortly.

This statement has received support from the following PC members (in
alphabetical order):
Ayden, Ed, Martin, Poncelet, Stephanie, Tapani

And the following observers:
Avri, Farzi, Kathy, Milton

I apologise if I have missed anyone. It may not be the statement that any
of us wanted to submit (for various reasons), but I am glad we were
ultimately able to come together and to submit these comments.

Best wishes,

Ayden


_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170325/7d29a0ab/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Mar 25 00:34:34 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 07:34:34 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Budget Questions
In-Reply-To: <bS3_10As2KrzV1Q98XRn_QAoI3b8SOvQYFbYBX7cg7cekbJblRdY5gsLcFVtCVtWq2mBZHpWoW-g7W8Q8P7SBHISr1jWLcLGXv9GQm9Hc10=@ferdeline.com>
References: <VxmE4Yz5S9UEOeUHX3F0FTRU0oCADR7Tk4yc7I5oEgVwLO5J-hVLdkatS3wzwbXBtsee3Aa3lkmpDPazb2Ar1QGXc0DG5m9dWkxPFB3h26g=@ferdeline.com>
 <bS3_10As2KrzV1Q98XRn_QAoI3b8SOvQYFbYBX7cg7cekbJblRdY5gsLcFVtCVtWq2mBZHpWoW-g7W8Q8P7SBHISr1jWLcLGXv9GQm9Hc10=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkrgpXr44PKLLvPpx=6=S=wD0QK2kkuE8-j5Bc1f=bF9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

Looks ok for me and I didn't anything of concern for me. Hopefully we can
respond the public comment on budget by the deadline

Best,

Rafik


On Mar 24, 2017 9:38 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

I will be emailing the FY-18 Budget questions to the Finance department in
30 minutes unless I hear objections otherwise.

Best,
Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:17 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

Just following up - FY18 Budget questions need to be sent off today. Please
consider editing the below document, adding missing questions, and
expressing your support or lack thereof on the list... thanks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-
403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

- Ayden

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:09 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

Hi all,

Please try to submit comments or additional questions regarding the FY18
Budget ASAP. We need to send this off tomorrow. If you otherwise support
these questions being asked, please also indicate support on-list. Thank
you!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-
403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:22 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

Okay, so here are the seven questions I have re: the FY-18 budget. More
might come in time. Please feel free to edit, add more, etc. We need to
submit these by Friday...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-
403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks,
Ayden


_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170325/28d6b3a4/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sat Mar 25 00:56:24 2017
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:56:24 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [FINAL] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=04UDS9c3V+wUQw3ipE8WM4c5u+GMs3phhp+-2QDLiKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <_byOw2LB3kba7W8RDbw4_VQSAMb0gaaESV1tvRVVt29tiK4Sd6VFwtUlPQBgRGJDlmp9y92XQHR5AzD8ValpKcPIP-Cq3eX19u_9qExuMNE=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkCuBrMxxuKpjOD0xVTWpUn6VoyN-uVtyRKMFcMny0MHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=04UDS9c3V+wUQw3ipE8WM4c5u+GMs3phhp+-2QDLiKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1EzpXfNUiPK1eJeFqQb5zAaG4AOLovrKjjU=6G9aCVSg@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Ayden for the work on this contribution. I also support it.
All the best wishes,
Marilia

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> With all effort to resolve comments and concerns, I think I can vote yes
> for the final version.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2017 10:54 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Please find attached the final version of our statement on the ALAC
> Review. I will be submitting this shortly.
>
> This statement has received support from the following PC members (in
> alphabetical order):
> Ayden, Ed, Martin, Poncelet, Stephanie, Tapani
>
> And the following observers:
> Avri, Farzi, Kathy, Milton
>
> I apologise if I have missed anyone. It may not be the statement that any
> of us wanted to submit (for various reasons), but I am glad we were
> ultimately able to come together and to submit these comments.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


-- 

*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/20170324/e22bd528/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sat Mar 25 00:57:35 2017
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:57:35 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Budget Questions
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkrgpXr44PKLLvPpx=6=S=wD0QK2kkuE8-j5Bc1f=bF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <VxmE4Yz5S9UEOeUHX3F0FTRU0oCADR7Tk4yc7I5oEgVwLO5J-hVLdkatS3wzwbXBtsee3Aa3lkmpDPazb2Ar1QGXc0DG5m9dWkxPFB3h26g=@ferdeline.com>
 <bS3_10As2KrzV1Q98XRn_QAoI3b8SOvQYFbYBX7cg7cekbJblRdY5gsLcFVtCVtWq2mBZHpWoW-g7W8Q8P7SBHISr1jWLcLGXv9GQm9Hc10=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkrgpXr44PKLLvPpx=6=S=wD0QK2kkuE8-j5Bc1f=bF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK05=5vgPsdm3b36nujVnH9Ty=m+sptUn-P+5pce+77TOA@mail.gmail.com>

No objections from my side, thanks Ayden.
Marilia

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Ayden,
>
> Looks ok for me and I didn't anything of concern for me. Hopefully we can
> respond the public comment on budget by the deadline
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2017 9:38 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> I will be emailing the FY-18 Budget questions to the Finance department in
> 30 minutes unless I hear objections otherwise.
>
> Best,
> Ayden
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:17 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
> Just following up - FY18 Budget questions need to be sent off today.
> Please consider editing the below document, adding missing questions, and
> expressing your support or lack thereof on the list... thanks.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPV
> PKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> - Ayden
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:09 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Please try to submit comments or additional questions regarding the FY18
> Budget ASAP. We need to send this off tomorrow. If you otherwise support
> these questions being asked, please also indicate support on-list. Thank
> you!
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPV
> PKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:22 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
> Okay, so here are the seven questions I have re: the FY-18 budget. More
> might come in time. Please feel free to edit, add more, etc. We need to
> submit these by Friday...
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPV
> PKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Thanks,
> Ayden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


-- 

*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/20170324/73720a53/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Sat Mar 25 01:12:02 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (mshears at cdt.org)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:12:02 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Budget Questions
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK05=5vgPsdm3b36nujVnH9Ty=m+sptUn-P+5pce+77TOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <VxmE4Yz5S9UEOeUHX3F0FTRU0oCADR7Tk4yc7I5oEgVwLO5J-hVLdkatS3wzwbXBtsee3Aa3lkmpDPazb2Ar1QGXc0DG5m9dWkxPFB3h26g=@ferdeline.com>
 <bS3_10As2KrzV1Q98XRn_QAoI3b8SOvQYFbYBX7cg7cekbJblRdY5gsLcFVtCVtWq2mBZHpWoW-g7W8Q8P7SBHISr1jWLcLGXv9GQm9Hc10=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkrgpXr44PKLLvPpx=6=S=wD0QK2kkuE8-j5Bc1f=bF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACpVkK05=5vgPsdm3b36nujVnH9Ty=m+sptUn-P+5pce+77TOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58d5a7d8.90891c0a.7a5ce.7c83@mx.google.com>

I support the submission.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Marilia Maciel
Sent: 24 March 2017 22:58
To: Rafik Dammak
Cc: ncsg-pc
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [URGENT] Budget Questions

No objections from my side, thanks Ayden.?
Marilia?

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ayden,

Looks ok for me and I didn't anything of concern for me. Hopefully we can respond the public comment on budget by the deadline

Best,

Rafik?


On Mar 24, 2017 9:38 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
I will be emailing the FY-18?Budget questions to the Finance department in 30 minutes unless I hear objections otherwise.?

Best,
Ayden?

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:17 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
Just following up - FY18?Budget questions need to be sent off today. Please consider editing the below document, adding missing questions, and expressing your support or lack thereof on the list... thanks.? 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing 

-?Ayden?

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:09 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Please try to submit comments or additional questions regarding the FY18 Budget?ASAP. We need to send this off tomorrow. If you otherwise support these questions being asked, please also indicate support on-list. Thank you!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing 

Best wishes,

Ayden?

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:22 pm, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
Okay, so here are the seven questions I have re: the FY-18 budget. More might come in time. Please feel free to edit, add more, etc. We need to submit these by Friday... 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oUc8ij3JWgs6iFys-403DNPVPKTXHKJCw8DDYrz5BgI/edit?usp=sharing 

Thanks,
Ayden

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


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




-- 

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 |?Twitter:?@MariliaM



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/21fa7996/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Mar 25 01:16:31 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:16:31 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [FINAL] FY-18 Budget Questions
Message-ID: <-le0UFPQixFhoLQiSPVktgED-IxNkoQAt5BwqH4nnuUpldQYg0BYtosy6gvf30MBz32rpglvnzVj5yQNVbdA2FCs6U8qeFYyPzCRR_DUeUM=@ferdeline.com>

Hi all,

For archive purposes, attached are the questions regarding the FY-18 Budget which I am emailing to the Finance department. They have committed to responding to us within four weeks. We can also schedule a webinar with them to explain their answers to our questions, if we request it; but I will leave this in the capable hands of the NCSG FC to coordinate.

Best wishes,

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/6b7cd444/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGBudgetQuestions-FY18.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 92567 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/6b7cd444/attachment.pdf>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Mar 25 01:27:24 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:27:24 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: RE: [Planning] NCSG FY-18 Budget Questions
In-Reply-To: <e10a1e14494146b68244eef43e48718c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <KlP1bcIXFkQfqCe3WG9oWNnNzaKyXdkj-GZtGNN7_YhBhX--JMIOUJCTX3Wd-eCAJWIoMCpXYImVBLjIjXQ74qYuJxJIUNWQ2IuWMt3fZvs=@ferdeline.com>
 <e10a1e14494146b68244eef43e48718c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <D4ebzzWA_2uv0GKW2KGQx0oRimtwqHFxdQ4lBgnNNBG92fnKf7Px70pRIKzB4Kzk_5TnYsz0ccdltqUIBnCbrTluPPZXeGcfc1jgeCvYfLY=@ferdeline.com>

Excellent news. The Finance department will provide answers to our questions by 7 April (not 21 April, as I had thought), which will leave us three full weeks to prepare our formal comment. Hopefully we will be able to get this comment firmed up well before the submission deadline.

Best wishes,

Ayden

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
Date: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:23 pm
Subject: Fwd: RE: [Planning] NCSG FY-18 Budget Questions
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
CC: planning at icann.org <planning at icann.org>

Dear Ayden F?rdeline,

Thank you for your questions.

We will review them and plan to provide answers by 7 April.

Kind regards,

Leo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/1e557266/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/1e557266/attachment.bin>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Mar 25 02:24:04 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:24:04 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC
	Review
In-Reply-To: <08004E5B-0E98-41D8-BF00-166356179059@toast.net>
References: <w0O0jFz9szkLUA4heFpqSPYiSrKSECjHUy8wl2DQyFz6WJ_ZfVtWF1H-c97HSviTvybZMIxKPs3bRSKJckZF5rLcfsiVEnwgf4n7t1xAvuY=@ferdeline.com>
 <4e7f301d-1d54-57b6-4322-d7c8d2791a51@cdt.org>
 <b326cc39-eb6c-0bfa-62e9-ce5b7dbbb9c1@cdt.org>
 <d563be72-606f-2874-e36f-064e9ed36ddf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <4268b6fd-2c37-683e-8281-b81db39e100e@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <PK013UuYvQrqHX8C5NkatNYAfsVz1tF3KcfIzJFGMazhvz06rhmvqlqjaME0XXVapZ-odenQKpHr9b5gnA9P4dwjWQdK6ARzPmVHCvT44YU=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170324205110.updbqkjfvvlq6dj3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <7mC4YzPjUbF7K8DMyVTmKeEoV5bNd88Pcxe0bmeAB6bKtxRnBQ0O-cR3JfV71sRDGHtqXRjmpzRQiv9IaSbKQ-0RwSOk9S-B8b0pWqbvmF4=@ferdeline.com>
 <08004E5B-0E98-41D8-BF00-166356179059@toast.net>
Message-ID: <Rs3T-l0RvhDaNqEu9Clm12WUkgChtfJeUtF0I6tDjuZ_Qym6kdGCqsw6OteDdcTJi20OxWV4RrgTzq8c6rKblFodsrc93IQqbhkKWIEp8wU=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks for the kind words, Ed.

I think it also important to give credit to Stephanie, whose extensive edits to the comment are the only reason why it gained sufficient traction to even be submitted.

Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:15 pm, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
Ayden,

I echo Tapani's comments. Thank you for your exemplary work on this.

I support submitting this as a NCSG comment but note that I preferred your initial draft to the one we are submitting. Nevertheless I do believe the final draft does reflect an appropriate compromise between the diverse views within the NCSG and is worthy of submission. Well done.

A shout out and thanks as well to McTim for his hard work on the Review itself.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

On 24 Mar 2017, at 14:07, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

I don't quite like the final document either - but we are all equally unhappy with it, it seems :-)

Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: Not perfect but good enough for me.

Thanks for the work you've put in this, Ayden.

Tapani

On Mar 23 22:01, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:

> Thank you for the kind words, Stephanie, and for the helpful edits. A new draft of the proposed statement is now available. It would be appreciated if everyone could please review it, and propose alternative text if and where applicable. This is a very different document than you may have reviewed a few hours ago.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s
>
> Best,
>
> Ayden
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:24 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> ANd I forgot to say, many thanks to Ayden for slogging away on this!! the report was a beast to get through, and pulling this together a hard task. Don't worry I think we can still get a shorter perhaps comment if a few of us can pull together and put in some comments. Dont everybody disappear tomorrow on a Friday break....
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-03-23 20:20, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I just spent some time commenting. I would suggest that we keep working on them, try to develop a more positive tone that indicates our shared experience.....but we are not going to get people to sign up for drafting comments if we reject them. Folks are always going to be too busy to engage in a fulsome discussion.
>
> Happy to hear about a better process....but in the meantime, better to fix this and boil it down to a couple of pages we can agree on than to give up, in my view....
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
> PS I think you used the old address so I included the new one....
>
> On 2017-03-23 18:27, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC, can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>
> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be rectifying this promptly.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hello PC
>
> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these suggested inputs carefully.
>
> Related docs can be found here.
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>
> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated asap.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
> From: Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at FERDELINE.COM>](mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM)
> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I have drafted up [on Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing) some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please take a read of the [proposed statement here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing), with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this mailing list!
>
> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get this together unfortunately. You can [read the draft report here](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf) (PDF link) if you haven't seen it already.
>
> A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
>
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
>
> --
> ------------
> 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

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

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/6388ebef/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Sat Mar 25 09:24:29 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:24:29 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>

Hi Ayden,

I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
represented.

I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.

Tapani

On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:

> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
> 
> - Ayden
> 
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
> 
> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
> 
> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	Interest in GNSO SSC
> Date:	Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
> From:	Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
> To:	Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
> 
> Dear Matthew
> 
> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
> 
> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
> 
> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
> 
> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
> 
> My SOI
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
> 
> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> 
> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
> 
> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
> think you would be qualified for the task.
> 
> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= >.
> 
> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> interested parties.
> 
> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> 
> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
> 
> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> 
> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))> by 27 March at the
> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> March at 16.00 UTC.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika Konings
> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)

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


From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Sat Mar 25 10:54:51 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 05:54:51 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAJjnsDF=uAmY1GUxZiZ8fLAQogbSHaenA+=NVgKRcSknsA97cg@mail.gmail.com>

I agree, since also that was the main argument behind getting three slots.

Cheers,
Martin

On 25 Mar 2017 08:24, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> Hi Ayden,
>
> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
> represented.
>
> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
>
> > My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of
> the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness,
> diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three
> representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN
> community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer),
> diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender,
> if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness
> (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic
> regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too
> simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
> >
> > - Ayden
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday
> and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should
> add her candidacy to the mix.
> >
> > Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now
> with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach
> works.
> >
> > I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the
> selection process. Thoughts welcome.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
> > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
> > From: Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:r
> aquino at gmail.com)
> > To:   Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
> >
> > Dear Matthew
> >
> > I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO
> Standing Selection Committee.
> >
> > I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the
> GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as
> coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
> >
> > I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such
> as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
> >
> > This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams
> and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get
> more involved to find their way into GNSO.
> >
> > My SOI
> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
> >
> > I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive
> it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week
> so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for
> this application.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
> > From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> > Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> >
> > If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
> > please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
> >
> > Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
> > think you would be qualified for the task.
> >
> > Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
> > it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
> > sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> > Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> > https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-
> selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.
> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=
> FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_
> FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-
> JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4
> Fnvcy4&e= >.
> >
> > The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> > applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> > selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> > ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> > Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> > 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> > review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> > interested parties.
> >
> > The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> >
> > The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> > - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party
> House;
> > - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> > - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
> > - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to
> the GNSO Council.
> >
> > The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> > selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> > Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> > April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> > to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> > Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> > consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> >
> > Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> > the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> > (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gns
> o-secs at icann.org))> by 27 March at the
> > latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> > March at 16.00 UTC.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Marika Konings
> > Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >
> > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&
> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
> Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_
> medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_
> content=emailclient)
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170325/e58f0716/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Mar 25 17:44:21 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 11:44:21 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>

What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?

cheers Stephanie


On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Ayden,
>
> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
> represented.
>
> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
>
>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>
>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>
>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:	Interest in GNSO SSC
>> Date:	Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>> From:	Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
>> To:	Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
>>
>> Dear Matthew
>>
>> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>>
>> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>>
>> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>>
>> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
>>
>> My SOI
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>>
>> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>
>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>
>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>
>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= >.
>>
>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>> interested parties.
>>
>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>
>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>
>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>
>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>> (gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))> by 27 March at the
>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marika Konings
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170325/0ed5f7b8/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Sun Mar 26 02:00:05 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (mshears at cdt.org)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 00:00:05 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>

Hi

The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.

So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria. 

My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.

Matthew



Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Stephanie Perrin
Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?? 
cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
Hi Ayden,

I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
represented.

I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.

Tapani

On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:

My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?

- Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.

Matthew

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:	Interest in GNSO SSC
Date:	Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
From:	Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
To:	Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)

Dear Matthew

I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.

I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.

This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.

My SOI
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI

I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.

Thanks

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----

Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= >.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
(gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))> by 27 March at the
latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient	Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
_______________________________________________
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/20170326/6b5d7852/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Mar 26 20:58:50 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:58:50 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>

So we have a day left to get this sorted.

1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?

2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics 
we are looking for might be?

3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that 
actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about 
how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at 
Council.

SP


On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>
> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including 
> of constituencies as criteria.
>
> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to 
> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach 
> agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest 
> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other 
> suggestions are welcome.
>
> Matthew
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> *From: *Stephanie Perrin <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Sent: *25 March 2017 15:44
> *To: *ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Subject: *Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>
> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
>     Hi Ayden,
>
>     I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>
>     for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>
>     represented.
>
>     I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>
>     I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>
>     work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>
>     Tapani
>
>     On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>
>         My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>
>         - Ayden
>
>         On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears<mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>  wrote:
>
>         Hi
>
>         Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>
>         Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>
>         I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>
>         Matthew
>
>         -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
>         Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
>
>         Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>
>         From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
>
>         To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
>
>         Dear Matthew
>
>         I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>
>         I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>
>         I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>
>         This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
>
>         My SOI
>
>         https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>
>         I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
>
>         Thanks
>
>         Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>
>         From: Tapani Tarvainen<ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> <mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>
>         Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>
>         Dear all,
>
>         See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>
>         If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>
>         please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>
>         Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>
>         think you would be qualified for the task.
>
>         Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>
>         it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>
>         sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>
>         --
>
>         Tapani Tarvainen
>
>         ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>         <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>  -----
>
>         Dear All,
>
>         On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>
>         Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>
>         https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>         >
>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>
>         The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>
>         applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>
>         selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>
>         ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>
>         Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>
>         3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>
>         review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>
>         interested parties.
>
>         The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>
>         The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>
>         - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>
>         - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>
>         - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>
>         - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>
>         The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>
>         selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>
>         Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>
>         April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>
>         to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>
>         Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>
>         consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>
>         Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>
>         the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>
>         (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g<mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))>
>         <mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>  by 27 March at the
>
>         latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>
>         March at 16.00 UTC.
>
>         Best regards,
>
>         Marika Konings
>
>         Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>         http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient       Virus-free. [www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>
>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>
>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170326/cba161a6/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Sun Mar 26 21:49:10 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:49:10 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAJjnsDF_ZcMkA7r9a0s9-E7BzV5yoL-vVvA6hZEiPC=abD0xWQ@mail.gmail.com>

Steph,

Agree on the questions but one thing:

It is true that no one will argue with us for this, but we did stated the
importance of addressing our constituency with each slot, and if we have
the opportunity to fulfill that concern we raised and won this should be
part of the core intentions when selecting the volunteers. I don't think we
should go around that.

Cheers,
Martin



On 26 Mar 2017 19:59, "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
wrote:

So we have a day left to get this sorted.

1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?

2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we
are looking for might be?

3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually
might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort
this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.

SP

On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org wrote:

Hi



The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.



So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of
constituencies as criteria.



My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss
the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If
that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio
and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.



Matthew







Sent from my Windows 10 phone



*From: *Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
*Sent: *25 March 2017 15:44
*To: *ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
*Subject: *Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC



What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?

cheers Stephanie



On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Ayden,



I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that

for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies

represented.



I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,

I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of

work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.



Tapani



On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:



My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those
of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing
the candidates?



- Ayden



On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
<mshears at cdt.org> wrote:



Hi



Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday
and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we
should add her candidacy to the mix.



Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now
with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates"
approach works.



I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the
selection process. Thoughts welcome.



Matthew



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

Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300

From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com>
<raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com <raquino at gmail.com>)

To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org>
<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mshears at cdt.org>)



Dear Matthew



I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO
Standing Selection Committee.



I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the
GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as
coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.



I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures
such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.



This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams
and appointments and also to help other community members who want to
get more involved to find their way into GNSO.



My SOI

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI



I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't
receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in
Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there
is still time for this application.



Thanks



Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200

From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>

Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT



Dear all,



See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.



If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,

please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.



Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you

think you would be qualified for the task.



Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and

it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make

sure you can commit yourself to the time required.



--

Tapani Tarvainen



----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----



Dear All,



On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see

https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.



The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where

applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the

selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as

ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered

Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,

3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for

review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all

interested parties.



The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:



The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:

- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;

- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;

- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,

- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to
the GNSO Council.



The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and

selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory

Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20

April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC

to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO

Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council

consideration by its June 2017 meeting.



Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to

the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat

(gnso-secs at icann.org)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g
nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))>
<[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March
at the

latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30

March at 16.00 UTC.



Best regards,



Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)



http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
     Virus-free.
[www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)



_______________________________________________

NCSG-PC mailing list

NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is

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

_______________________________________________

NCSG-PC mailing list

NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is

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







_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170326/c4cf594d/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Sun Mar 26 22:03:05 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:03:05 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>,
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Thanks, Steph.
I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

So we have a day left to get this sorted.

1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?

2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?

3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.

SP

On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
Hi

The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.

So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.

My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.

Matthew



Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC


What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Ayden,



I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that

for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies

represented.



I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,

I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of

work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.



Tapani



On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:



My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?



- Ayden



On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:



Hi



Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.



Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.



I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.



Matthew



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

Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300

From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)

To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)



Dear Matthew



I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.



I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.



I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.



This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.



My SOI

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI



I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.



Thanks



Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200

From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>

Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT



Dear all,



See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.



If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,

please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.



Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you

think you would be qualified for the task.



Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and

it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make

sure you can commit yourself to the time required.



--

Tapani Tarvainen



----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----



Dear All,



On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see

https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.



The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where

applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the

selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as

ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered

Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,

3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for

review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all

interested parties.



The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:



The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:

- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;

- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;

- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,

- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.



The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and

selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory

Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20

April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC

to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO

Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council

consideration by its June 2017 meeting.



Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to

the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat

(gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the

latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30

March at 16.00 UTC.



Best regards,



Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)



http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient      Virus-free. [www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)



_______________________________________________

NCSG-PC mailing list

NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>

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

_______________________________________________

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




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


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Mar 26 22:59:39 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:39 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <CAJjnsDF_ZcMkA7r9a0s9-E7BzV5yoL-vVvA6hZEiPC=abD0xWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAJjnsDF_ZcMkA7r9a0s9-E7BzV5yoL-vVvA6hZEiPC=abD0xWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04898854-5154-697f-f6e8-cbd3416c079c@mail.utoronto.ca>

Oh I agree that we should stick to it as much as we can.....but I dont 
think we have an NCSG (no constituency) person running.  I could be wrong.

cheers SP


On 2017-03-26 14:49, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
> Steph,
>
> Agree on the questions but one thing:
>
> It is true that no one will argue with us for this, but we did stated 
> the importance of addressing our constituency with each slot, and if 
> we have the opportunity to fulfill that concern we raised and won this 
> should be part of the core intentions when selecting the volunteers. I 
> don't think we should go around that.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 26 Mar 2017 19:59, "Stephanie Perrin" 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>
>     1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>
>     2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>     characteristics we are looking for might be?
>
>     3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
>     actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue
>     about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight
>     it out at Council.
>
>     SP
>
>
>     On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi
>>
>>     The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>
>>     So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>     including of constituencies as criteria.
>>
>>     My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
>>     discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>     agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each
>>     suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough
>>     consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
>>
>>     Matthew
>>
>>     Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>
>>     *From: *Stephanie Perrin <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>     *Sent: *25 March 2017 15:44
>>     *To: *ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>     *Subject: *Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>
>>     What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>
>>     cheers Stephanie
>>
>>     On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Ayden,
>>
>>           
>>
>>         I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>
>>         for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>
>>         represented.
>>
>>           
>>
>>         I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>
>>         I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>
>>         work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>
>>           
>>
>>         Tapani
>>
>>           
>>
>>         On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>
>>           
>>
>>             My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>
>>               
>>
>>             - Ayden
>>
>>               
>>
>>             On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears<mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>  wrote:
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Hi
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Matthew
>>
>>               
>>
>>             -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>
>>             Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
>>
>>             Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>>
>>             From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>)
>>
>>             To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>)
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Dear Matthew
>>
>>               
>>
>>             I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             My SOI
>>
>>             https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>>             <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI>
>>
>>               
>>
>>             I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Thanks
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>
>>             From: Tapani Tarvainen<ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>             <mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>
>>             Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Dear all,
>>
>>               
>>
>>             See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>
>>             please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>
>>             think you would be qualified for the task.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>
>>             it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>
>>             sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             --
>>
>>             Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>>               
>>
>>             ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>>             <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>  -----
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Dear All,
>>
>>               
>>
>>             On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>
>>             Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>
>>             https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf
>>             <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf>[gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org>]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>             >
>>             <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>
>>             applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>
>>             selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>
>>             ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>
>>             Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>
>>             3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>
>>             review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>
>>             interested parties.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>
>>               
>>
>>             The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>
>>             - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>
>>             - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>
>>             - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>
>>             - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>
>>             selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>
>>             Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>
>>             April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>
>>             to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>
>>             Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>
>>             consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>
>>             the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>
>>             (gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g<mailto: [g
>>             nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))>
>>             <mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>  by 27 March at the
>>
>>             latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>
>>             March at 16.00 UTC.
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Best regards,
>>
>>               
>>
>>             Marika Konings
>>
>>             Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>>               
>>
>>             http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
>>             <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>       Virus-free. [www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
>>             <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>)
>>
>>           
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>
>>             NCSG-PC mailing list
>>
>>             NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170326/01edf780/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Mar 27 09:08:57 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:08:57 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>

Hi Stefania and Stephanie,

I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?

If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
transcribed?

That would not ... be exactly transparent.

Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
say, 5 minutes to speak might work.

A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
that already.

As for the qualifications, two points:

First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
we can do whatever we like.

Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
on her or his plate already.

Tapani

On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:

> Thanks, Steph.
> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
> 
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> 
> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
> 
> 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
> 
> 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
> 
> 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
> 
> SP
> 
> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
> 
> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
> 
> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> 
> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> 
> 
> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
> 
> cheers Stephanie
> 
> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> 
> Hi Ayden,
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
> 
> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
> 
> represented.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
> 
> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
> 
> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
> 
> 
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
> 
> 
> 
> - Ayden
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
> 
> 
> 
> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> 
> Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
> 
> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
> 
> From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
> 
> To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Matthew
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
> 
> 
> 
> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
> 
> 
> 
> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
> 
> 
> 
> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
> 
> 
> 
> My SOI
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
> 
> 
> 
> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
> 
> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> 
> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> 
> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
> 
> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
> 
> think you would be qualified for the task.
> 
> 
> 
> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
> 
> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
> 
> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> 
> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> 
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> 
> 
> 
> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> 
> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> 
> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> 
> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> 
> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> 
> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> 
> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> 
> interested parties.
> 
> 
> 
> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> 
> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
> 
> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> 
> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
> 
> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
> 
> 
> 
> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> 
> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> 
> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> 
> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> 
> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> 
> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> 
> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> 
> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> 
> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
> 
> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> 
> March at 16.00 UTC.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Marika Konings
> 
> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient      Virus-free. [www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> 
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> 
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


From mshears at cdt.org  Mon Mar 27 11:01:55 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:01:55 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [FINAL] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review
In-Reply-To: <_byOw2LB3kba7W8RDbw4_VQSAMb0gaaESV1tvRVVt29tiK4Sd6VFwtUlPQBgRGJDlmp9y92XQHR5AzD8ValpKcPIP-Cq3eX19u_9qExuMNE=@ferdeline.com>
References: <_byOw2LB3kba7W8RDbw4_VQSAMb0gaaESV1tvRVVt29tiK4Sd6VFwtUlPQBgRGJDlmp9y92XQHR5AzD8ValpKcPIP-Cq3eX19u_9qExuMNE=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <9605a2ab-85ba-043b-de24-ec9230dbf65c@cdt.org>

Ayden, all

Just wanted to express my thanks to you Ayden for your considerable work 
and to those who jumped in to bring this together.

Well done.

Matthew


On 24/03/2017 21:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> All,
>
> Please find attached the final version of our statement on the ALAC 
> Review. I will be submitting this shortly.
>
> This statement has received support from the following PC members (in 
> alphabetical order):
> Ayden, Ed, Martin, Poncelet, Stephanie, Tapani
>
> And the following observers:
> Avri, Farzi, Kathy, Milton
>
> I apologise if I have missed anyone. It may not be the statement that 
> any of us wanted to submit (for various reasons), but I am glad we 
> were ultimately able to come together and to submit these comments.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
------------
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/20170327/2380e67a/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Mar 27 17:19:26 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:19:26 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>

I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place 
without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are 
not on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we 
were going to have an open discussion on the PC list.

I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments 
based on what makes the best slate of candidates.

SP


On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>
> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
> transcribed?
>
> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>
> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>
> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
> that already.
>
> As for the qualifications, two points:
>
> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
> we can do whatever we like.
>
> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
> on her or his plate already.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Steph.
>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>
>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>
>> 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>
>> 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>
>> 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>
>> SP
>>
>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>
>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
>>
>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>
>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>
>>
>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>
>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>
>> represented.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>
>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>
>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>
>>
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>
>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>
>> Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
>>
>> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>>
>> From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
>>
>> To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>>
>>
>>
>> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
>>
>>
>>
>> My SOI
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>>
>>
>>
>> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>
>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>
>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>
>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>
>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>
>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>
>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>
>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>
>>
>>
>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>
>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>
>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>
>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>
>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>
>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>
>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>
>> interested parties.
>>
>>
>>
>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>
>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>
>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>
>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>
>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>
>>
>>
>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>
>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>
>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>
>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>
>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>
>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>
>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>
>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>
>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
>>
>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>
>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Marika Konings
>>
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient      Virus-free. [www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170327/90b58495/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Mar 27 17:24:57 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:24:57 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <IPbondGAwzHYpKHhuSF4WYrsGQFNEq4W19RQ9dCKog9g5pD8dfubOOi9dJ7XAvfYOPiWgkA8dYwGF1JvmJNeZPaElQryfn4YyGCKjbZMBUo=@ferdeline.com>

+1 to both paragraphs

- Ayden

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 3:19 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who are not on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were going to have an open discussion on the PC list.

I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based on what makes the best slate of candidates.

SP

On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Stefania and Stephanie,

I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?

If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
transcribed?

That would not ... be exactly transparent.

Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
say, 5 minutes to speak might work.

A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
that already.

As for the qualifications, two points:

First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
we can do whatever we like.

Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
on her or his plate already.

Tapani

On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (
Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
) wrote:

Thanks, Steph.
I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC
[<ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is)
per conto di Stephanie Perrin
[<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
A:
mshears at cdt.org
;
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

So we have a day left to get this sorted.

1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?

2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?

3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.

SP

On 2017-03-25 20:00,
mshears at cdt.org[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
wrote:
Hi

The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.

So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.

My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.

Matthew

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Stephanie Perrin
[<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
To:
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is[<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is)
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Ayden,

I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that

for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies

represented.

I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,

I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of

work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.

Tapani

On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (
icann at ferdeline.com[<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
) wrote:

My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?

- Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
[<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
wrote:

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.

Matthew

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

Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300

From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [
[<raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)[<mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
](
mailto:raquino at gmail.com
)

To:      Matthew Shears [
[<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
](
mailto:mshears at cdt.org
)

Dear Matthew

I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.

I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.

This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.

My SOI
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.

Thanks

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200

From: Tapani Tarvainen
[<ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>](mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO)[<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>](mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO)
Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,

please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you

think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and

it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make

sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--

Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
[<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>](mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org)[<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>](mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org)
-----

Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf
[gnso.icann.org]
[<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= >](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=)[<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=)
.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where

applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the

selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as

ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered

Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,

3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for

review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all

interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:

- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;

- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;

- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,

- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and

selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory

Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20

April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC

to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO

Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council

consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to

the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat

(
gnso-secs at icann.org[<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)
)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g
[<mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))>](mailto:nso-secs@<a class=)[<mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>](mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29)
by 27 March at the

latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30

March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Virus-free. [
www.avg.com[<http://www.avg.com>](http://www.avg.com)
](
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
)

_______________________________________________

NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is[<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is)

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

NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is[<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is

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

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is

https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170327/8925f8de/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Mar 27 17:51:21 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:51:21 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] IGO-INGO comment due in three days
Message-ID: <Yg_3XN7DaUPNIdOwT9Bj_9DVo3MlZ1-Aw17jiV_6LGa27Zi4BjHP0BJMV-Ei2Ic4NXSgMbtGsSWQRwRiM0srRd_KH0A1eU26T8P2e2vbDqU=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

Just a reminder that comments on the Initial Report from the PDP WG that is evaluating IGO and INGO's access to curative rights protection mechanisms are due in three days, on 30 March. Do we have a response in progress?

Best wishes,

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170327/d9efe31a/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Mar 27 22:52:10 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:52:10 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.

I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.

In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
this and I trust he gets it done in time.

Tapani

On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
> without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are not
> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
> 
> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
> 
> SP
> 
> 
> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
> > conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
> > 
> > If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
> > transcribed?
> > 
> > That would not ... be exactly transparent.
> > 
> > Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
> > the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
> > their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
> > say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
> > 
> > A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
> > that already.
> > 
> > As for the qualifications, two points:
> > 
> > First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
> > ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
> > we can do whatever we like.
> > 
> > Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
> > sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
> > over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
> > on her or his plate already.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
> > 
> > > Thanks, Steph.
> > > I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
> > > 
> > > ________________________________________
> > > Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> > > Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
> > > A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> > > Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> > > 
> > > So we have a day left to get this sorted.
> > > 
> > > 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
> > > 
> > > 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
> > > 
> > > 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
> > > 
> > > SP
> > > 
> > > On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
> > > 
> > > So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
> > > 
> > > My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
> > > 
> > > Matthew
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > > 
> > > From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> > > Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
> > > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> > > 
> > > 
> > > What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
> > > 
> > > cheers Stephanie
> > > 
> > > On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Ayden,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
> > > 
> > > for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
> > > 
> > > represented.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
> > > 
> > > I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
> > > 
> > > work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Tapani
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Ayden
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Matthew
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > 
> > > Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
> > > 
> > > Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
> > > 
> > > From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
> > > 
> > > To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dear Matthew
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My SOI
> > > 
> > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
> > > 
> > > From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> > > 
> > > Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dear all,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
> > > 
> > > please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
> > > 
> > > think you would be qualified for the task.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
> > > 
> > > it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
> > > 
> > > sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > Tapani Tarvainen
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dear All,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> > > 
> > > Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> > > 
> > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> > > 
> > > applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> > > 
> > > selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> > > 
> > > ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> > > 
> > > Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> > > 
> > > 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> > > 
> > > review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> > > 
> > > interested parties.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> > > 
> > > - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
> > > 
> > > - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> > > 
> > > - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
> > > 
> > > - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> > > 
> > > selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> > > 
> > > Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> > > 
> > > April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> > > 
> > > to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> > > 
> > > Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> > > 
> > > consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> > > 
> > > the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> > > 
> > > (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
> > > 
> > > latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> > > 
> > > March at 16.00 UTC.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Marika Konings
> > > 
> > > Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> > > 


From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Mon Mar 27 23:31:11 2017
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:31:11 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <77c062dd-3f16-ffdf-038d-ecd720ba62d0@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All,

Quick note that Ed is not longer active on the Rights Protection 
Mechanisms Working Group as he stepped back a bit ago to focus on SSC 
and budget.

My thought is that for the first round of a new set of rules, it is 
often useful to have the folks that drafted them on the committee. It 
helps to ensure that implementation fulfills the intent and goals (and 
fair implementation is a huge problem at ICANN, as you know!)

Here, Ed wrote these rules and would be a very good person to see them 
off the ground. If appointed, I can envision he would lead this group in 
its first round. Why not send the visionary?

Best, Kathy

On 3/27/2017 3:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>
> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>
> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>> without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are not
>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>
>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>
>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>> transcribed?
>>>
>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>
>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>>> that already.
>>>
>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>
>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>
>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>
>>>> 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>>>
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>
>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>
>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>
>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>
>>>> represented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>
>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>
>>>> Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>>>>
>>>> From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
>>>>
>>>> To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My SOI
>>>>
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>
>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>
>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>
>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>
>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>
>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>
>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>>
>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
>>>>
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Mon Mar 27 23:38:11 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:38:11 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <77c062dd-3f16-ffdf-038d-ecd720ba62d0@kathykleiman.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <77c062dd-3f16-ffdf-038d-ecd720ba62d0@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CAJjnsDGcEwuP_u_Mh16PS4OBYwe3Tg0U3neNq-6JXC_31dtvBw@mail.gmail.com>

I agree that Ed is a must in this selection, it would be a waste of
knowledge and commitment already there waiting to serve us. We can add
diversity and freshness with Renata, but Ed for me a clear choice for this
three seats.

Cheers,
Martin

On 27 Mar 2017 10:31 p.m., "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Quick note that Ed is not longer active on the Rights Protection
> Mechanisms Working Group as he stepped back a bit ago to focus on SSC and
> budget.
>
> My thought is that for the first round of a new set of rules, it is often
> useful to have the folks that drafted them on the committee. It helps to
> ensure that implementation fulfills the intent and goals (and fair
> implementation is a huge problem at ICANN, as you know!)
>
> Here, Ed wrote these rules and would be a very good person to see them off
> the ground. If appointed, I can envision he would lead this group in its
> first round. Why not send the visionary?
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 3/27/2017 3:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>
>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>>
>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
>> wrote:
>>
>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>>> without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are
>>> not
>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>
>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments
>>> based
>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>
>>> SP
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>>
>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>> transcribed?
>>>>
>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>
>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>>>> that already.
>>>>
>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>
>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>
>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie
>>>>> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>
>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
>>>>> actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about
>>>>> how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at
>>>>> Council.
>>>>>
>>>>> SP
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including
>>>>> of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
>>>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>>>> agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our
>>>>> preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions
>>>>> are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>>
>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>
>>>>> represented.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>>
>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:ic
>>>>> ann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those
>>>>> of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope
>>>>> our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the
>>>>> ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a
>>>>> newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the
>>>>> same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and
>>>>> representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from
>>>>> different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect
>>>>> metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>>>> ><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday
>>>>> and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should
>>>>> add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now
>>>>> with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach
>>>>> works.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the
>>>>> selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>>>>>
>>>>> From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:ra
>>>>> quino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
>>>>>
>>>>> To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org
>>>>> >](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO
>>>>> Standing Selection Committee.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the
>>>>> GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as
>>>>> coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures
>>>>> such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams
>>>>> and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get
>>>>> more involved to find their way into GNSO.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My SOI
>>>>>
>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't
>>>>> receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil
>>>>> this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still
>>>>> time for this application.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:
>>>>> ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee -
>>>>> URGENT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>>
>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>>
>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>>
>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>>
>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
>>>>> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>
>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.
>>>>> icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommi
>>>>> ttee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV
>>>>> zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyX
>>>>> rxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFB
>>>>> e1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.
>>>>> icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommi
>>>>> ttee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV
>>>>> zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyX
>>>>> rxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFB
>>>>> e1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>>
>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>>
>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>>
>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>>
>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>>
>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted
>>>>> Party House;
>>>>>
>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
>>>>> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>
>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>>>
>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to
>>>>> the GNSO Council.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>
>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>>
>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>>
>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>>
>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>>
>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>
>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>>
>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>
>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto:
>>>>> [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gn
>>>>> so-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>>
>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>
>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170327/041340c3/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Mar 28 00:31:00 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:31:00 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>

Hi all

I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.

Where we are at the moment:

We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.

There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process 
along to little avail and to some criticism.

There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three 
for the SSC.  4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they 
are candidates and 1 for process concerns.

We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity, 
experience and representativeness including of constituencies

Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names 
today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.

The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.

I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move 
this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.

Thanks in advance.

Matthew





On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>
> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>
> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>> without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are not
>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>
>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>
>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>> transcribed?
>>>
>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>
>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>>> that already.
>>>
>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>
>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>
>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>
>>>> 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>>>
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>
>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>
>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>
>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>
>>>> represented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>
>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>
>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>
>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>
>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>
>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>
>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>
>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>>
>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
>>>>
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

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



From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar 28 00:36:49 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:36:49 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>

The successful candidates should be the people who show the best ability against the person specification for the role. I am making such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring, personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally, etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight. And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding taking this approach?

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
From: mshears at cdt.org
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Hi all

I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.

Where we are at the moment:

We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.

There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
along to little avail and to some criticism.

There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
are candidates and 1 for process concerns.

We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
experience and representativeness including of constituencies

Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.

The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.

I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.

Thanks in advance.

Matthew

On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>
> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>
> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who are not
>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>
>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>
>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>> transcribed?
>>>
>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>
>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>>> that already.
>>>
>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>
>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>
>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>
>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>>>
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>
>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>
>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>
>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>
>>>> represented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>
>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>
>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>
>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>
>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>
>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>
>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>
>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>>
>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
>>>>
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

--
------------
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/20170327/b04f6454/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 28 00:38:11 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:38:11 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <6b6559c4-a4ac-768c-340b-32dc7c0f3c45@mail.utoronto.ca>

This comment is unfair, in my view, Tapani.  It was not a long, secret 
discussion.  I asked the question on the public list at 19:58 amsterdam 
time, as you can see below.  Stefi responded at 15:03 EDT that 
contestants should be removed.  I put together the list and forgot you 
(sorry, but these things happen, it was not deliberate) at16:04 EDT, 
asking if I had forgotten anyone.  I added you the next morning after 
Matt pointed out I forgot you at 10:23 EDT.  I have forwarded three 
messages you missed. At any point you could have fired off an email 
inquiring about the discussion, and whether you had been omitted, had 
you noticed that the discussion on the PC list had died following what 
appeared to be agreement to remove candidates.  I don't really think the 
decision making on that was not transparent.
As I indicated earlier, it is only fair to add the other two contestants 
to the discussion, now that it is on the PC list. I do not believe they 
are members. Accordingly, I am adding Renata and Kris.....Welcome to the 
discussion on the Policy Committee list regarding choosing our 
representatives for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

Cheers Stephanie



On 2017-03-27 15:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>
> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>
> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>> without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are not
>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>
>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>
>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>> transcribed?
>>>
>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>
>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>>> that already.
>>>
>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>
>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>
>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>
>>>> 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>>>
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>
>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>
>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>
>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>
>>>> represented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>
>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>
>>>> Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>>>>
>>>> From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
>>>>
>>>> To:      Matthew Shears [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more involved to find their way into GNSO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My SOI
>>>>
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it. There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this application.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>
>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>
>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>
>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>
>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>
>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>
>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>>
>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
>>>>
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170327/a6da7614/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Tue Mar 28 00:41:48 2017
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:41:48 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvA6hy=hOs72wuHMx+UHX576BgGWm9pLS3=Gn60BxmdJ5w@mail.gmail.com>

>From the proud observer

this is a sound approach Ayden. But who is going to grade them? do you have
a list of those who must grade? and if they don't what will this group do?


Farzaneh

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best ability
> against the person specification for the role. I am making such a grading
> rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to the list shortly for
> feedback and to allow others to refine it. This way we can objectively
> grade the candidates without decisions being made on the basis of snap
> judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring, personalities rather than
> abilities, information provided informally, etc. There are only five
> candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too long to grade them once the
> rubric is ready, which will be tonight. And the three candidates with the
> highest scores should be our representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have
> any hesitations regarding taking this approach?
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
> From: mshears at cdt.org
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> Hi all
>
> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.
>
> Where we are at the moment:
>
> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>
> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>
> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>
> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>
> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>
> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.
>
> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
> > email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
> > this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
> >
> > I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
> > discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
> > publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
> > able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
> > if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
> >
> > In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
> > this and I trust he gets it done in time.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
> wrote:
> >
> >> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
> >> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who are
> not
> >> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
> >> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
> >>
> >> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments
> based
> >> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
> >>
> >> SP
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
> >>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
> >>>
> >>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
> >>> transcribed?
> >>>
> >>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
> >>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
> >>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
> >>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
> >>>
> >>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
> >>> that already.
> >>>
> >>> As for the qualifications, two points:
> >>>
> >>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
> >>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
> >>> we can do whatever we like.
> >>>
> >>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
> >>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
> >>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
> >>> on her or his plate already.
> >>>
> >>> Tapani
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks, Steph.
> >>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie
> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> >>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
> >>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> >>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> >>>>
> >>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
> characteristics we are looking for might be?
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue about how
> we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
> >>>>
> >>>> SP
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
> >>>>
> >>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including
> of constituencies as criteria.
> >>>>
> >>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.
> If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred
> trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other suggestions are welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> Matthew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> >>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
> >>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers Stephanie
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Ayden,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
> >>>>
> >>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
> >>>>
> >>>> represented.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
> >>>>
> >>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tapani
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:ic
> ann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those
> of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope
> our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the
> ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a
> newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the
> same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and
> representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from
> different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect
> metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - Ayden
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
> ><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday
> and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should
> add her candidacy to the mix.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now
> with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach
> works.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the
> selection process. Thoughts welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Matthew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:
> ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> >>>>
> >>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee -
> URGENT
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
> >>>>
> >>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
> >>>>
> >>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
> >>>>
> >>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
> >>>>
> >>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <
> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear All,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
> >>>>
> >>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
> >>>>
> >>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-
> selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.
> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_
> draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=
> FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_
> FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-
> JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4
> Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-
> 2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6
> sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_
> uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-
> 0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
> >>>>
> >>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
> >>>>
> >>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
> >>>>
> >>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
> >>>>
> >>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
> >>>>
> >>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
> >>>>
> >>>> interested parties.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted
> Party House;
> >>>>
> >>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet
> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
> >>>>
> >>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group;
> and,
> >>>>
> >>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to
> the GNSO Council.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
> >>>>
> >>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
> >>>>
> >>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
> >>>>
> >>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
> >>>>
> >>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
> >>>>
> >>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
> >>>>
> >>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
> >>>>
> >>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
> >>>>
> >>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto:
> [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gn
> so-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
> >>>>
> >>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
> >>>>
> >>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Marika Konings
> >>>>
> >>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170327/aaefec1d/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar 28 00:46:24 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:46:24 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvA6hy=hOs72wuHMx+UHX576BgGWm9pLS3=Gn60BxmdJ5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAN1qJvA6hy=hOs72wuHMx+UHX576BgGWm9pLS3=Gn60BxmdJ5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <vmLewiFVuqD_tfZJA_5hIRHXI9VCEOIKBAmFqqrtdw-GUzR7ytQ70xuHPHtvG8PvbnMzfCArQ_ol3t83GHheb8xbeNX-_xu_1yBG8F8Om08=@ferdeline.com>

I was thinking that the Policy Committee members not running for the SSC would grade them -- so Matt, Stephanie, Martin, Tapani (if he is still participating; on a different email chain there was a suggestion he may not), Marilia, and myself (apologies if I have missed anyone). And if they don't grade the candidates, I leave this in the capable hands of the PC Vice Chair to resolve ;-)

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:41 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:41
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

From the proud observer

this is a sound approach Ayden. But who is going to grade them? do you have a list of those who must grade? and if they don't what will this group do?

Farzaneh

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
The successful candidates should be the people who show the best ability against the person specification for the role. I am making such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring, personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally, etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight. And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding taking this approach?

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
From: mshears at cdt.org
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Hi all

I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.

Where we are at the moment:

We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.

There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
along to little avail and to some criticism.

There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
are candidates and 1 for process concerns.

We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
experience and representativeness including of constituencies

Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.

The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.

I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.

Thanks in advance.

Matthew

On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>
> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>
> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who are not
>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>
>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>
>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>> transcribed?
>>>
>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>
>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>>> that already.
>>>
>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>
>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>
>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>
>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>>>
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>
>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>
>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>
>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>
>>>> represented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>
>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>
>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>
>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>
>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>
>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>
>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>
>>>> [https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D) <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>
>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>>
>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
>>>>
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
[+ 44 771 2472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987)

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

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170327/871c8bdc/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar 28 00:49:54 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:49:54 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <vmLewiFVuqD_tfZJA_5hIRHXI9VCEOIKBAmFqqrtdw-GUzR7ytQ70xuHPHtvG8PvbnMzfCArQ_ol3t83GHheb8xbeNX-_xu_1yBG8F8Om08=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAN1qJvA6hy=hOs72wuHMx+UHX576BgGWm9pLS3=Gn60BxmdJ5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <vmLewiFVuqD_tfZJA_5hIRHXI9VCEOIKBAmFqqrtdw-GUzR7ytQ70xuHPHtvG8PvbnMzfCArQ_ol3t83GHheb8xbeNX-_xu_1yBG8F8Om08=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <mpZ7TRIEU-rb27N92tgSafR_ZdVydf91c6alulcrTFfXihkps1l-1G9QxBNTCD1wa-eDWq22wYwHemsjD1CULXYDrmvIfjWJIfFJGDDDq9M=@ferdeline.com>

And Stefani, too. Hopefully I included everyone this time around ;-)

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:46 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:46
From: icann at ferdeline.com
To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at GMAIL.COM>, seeburnk at gmail.com <seeburnk at gmail.com>

I was thinking that the Policy Committee members not running for the SSC would grade them -- so Matt, Stephanie, Martin, Tapani (if he is still participating; on a different email chain there was a suggestion he may not), Marilia, and myself (apologies if I have missed anyone). And if they don't grade the candidates, I leave this in the capable hands of the PC Vice Chair to resolve ;-)

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:41 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:41
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

From the proud observer

this is a sound approach Ayden. But who is going to grade them? do you have a list of those who must grade? and if they don't what will this group do?

Farzaneh

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
The successful candidates should be the people who show the best ability against the person specification for the role. I am making such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring, personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally, etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight. And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding taking this approach?

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
From: mshears at cdt.org
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Hi all

I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.

Where we are at the moment:

We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.

There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
along to little avail and to some criticism.

There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
are candidates and 1 for process concerns.

We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
experience and representativeness including of constituencies

Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.

The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.

I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.

Thanks in advance.

Matthew

On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>
> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>
> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who are not
>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>
>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>
>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>> transcribed?
>>>
>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>
>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>>> that already.
>>>
>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>
>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>
>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>
>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>>>
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>
>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>
>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>
>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>
>>>> represented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>
>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>
>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>
>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>
>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>
>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>
>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>
>>>> [https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D) <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party House;
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>
>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>>
>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> by 27 March at the
>>>>
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
[+ 44 771 2472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987)

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

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170327/3ea103d8/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Tue Mar 28 00:57:47 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:57:47 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>


> personalities rather than abilities

isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?

My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
impasse, give it a try.

avri


On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring,
> personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too
> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding
> taking this approach?
>
> - Ayden 
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.
>>
>> Where we are at the moment:
>>
>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>>
>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>
>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>
>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>
>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>
>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.
>>
>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
>> > email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>> > this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>> >
>> > I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>> > discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
>> > publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>> > able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
>> > if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>> >
>> > In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>> > this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>> >
>> > Tapani
>> >
>> > On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take
>> place
>> >> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who
>> are not
>> >> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we
>> were
>> >> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>> >>
>> >> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>> arguments based
>> >> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>> >>
>> >> SP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> >>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>> >>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>> >>>
>> >>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>> >>> transcribed?
>> >>>
>> >>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>> >>>
>> >>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion
>> about
>> >>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>> >>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>> >>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>> >>>
>> >>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>> short for
>> >>> that already.
>> >>>
>> >>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>> >>>
>> >>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>> >>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>> >>> we can do whatever we like.
>> >>>
>> >>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>> >>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>> >>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>> >>> on her or his plate already.
>> >>>
>> >>> Tapani
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Thanks, Steph.
>> >>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ________________________________________
>> >>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> >>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>> >>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>> >>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
>> out at Council.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> SP
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest
>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>> suggestions are welcome.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Matthew
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> >>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>> >>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> cheers Stephanie
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Ayden,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>> >>>>
>> >>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>> >>>>
>> >>>> represented.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>> >>>>
>> >>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tapani
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>> assessing the candidates?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Ayden
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe
>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
>> "alternates" approach works.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for
>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Matthew
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>> - URGENT
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dear all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>> >>>>
>> >>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>> >>>>
>> >>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>> >>>>
>> >>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dear All,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>> ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>> >>>>
>> >>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>> >>>>
>> >>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>> applicants/candidates,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>> recommendations for
>> >>>>
>> >>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>> >>>>
>> >>>> interested parties.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>> Contracted Party House;
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>> Group; and,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>> >>>>
>> >>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>> its 20
>> >>>>
>> >>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>> >>>>
>> >>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the
>> GNSO
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>> >>>>
>> >>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>> member(s) to
>> >>>>
>> >>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>> <mailto: [g
>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>> by 27 March at the
>> >>>>
>> >>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>> >>>>
>> >>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best regards,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Marika Konings
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> >>>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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 AVG.
>> > http://www.avg.com
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 28 00:57:42 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:57:42 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Draft Motion: Preliminary Adoption of
 the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter
In-Reply-To: <F2D66D89-BFDC-4016-958F-5DF7705B60B5@fb.com>
References: <F2D66D89-BFDC-4016-958F-5DF7705B60B5@fb.com>
Message-ID: <4b88cb2d-d1ad-ee93-7eea-b081f32e3b68@mail.utoronto.ca>

In case anyone has lost track of what in fact we are talking about here, 
I am forwarding the discussion from the GNSO meeting in Copenhagen.

cheers Stephanie


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] FW: Draft Motion: Preliminary Adoption of the GNSO 
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter
Date: 	Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:10:24 +0000
From: 	Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Resending as I have not seen this appear on the list.

*From: *Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com>
*Date: *Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:24 AM
*To: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, "James M. Bladel" 
<jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [council] Draft Motion: Preliminary Adoption of the GNSO 
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter

Thank you Donna for the edits to clarify the motion.

Ed and I both feel strongly that we adhere to the following language 
which allows for a rotation of stakeholder group candidates for review 
team selection.  We agree that first and foremost that qualified 
candidates should be selected but as there are no shortage of candidates 
applying for the review teams historically we believe that the SSC can 
select qualified candidates and ensure that all SG?s are represented in 
the on going process.

/In order to achieve balance and diversity on the Review Teams, a system 
of rotation shall be applied to Review Team selections. Any Stakeholder 
Group which nominated candidates(s) for a Review Team but did not have a 
candidate ranked in the top three for that Review Team shall be 
guaranteed to have an applicant from their Stakeholder Group ranked in 
the top three for the next three GNSO Review Team appointment processes./

//

Hope to discuss this more on the council/. /

Susan

*From: *<council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" 
<Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>
*Date: *Friday, March 3, 2017 at 11:00 AM
*To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List 
<council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [council] Draft Motion: Preliminary Adoption of the GNSO 
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter

James, all

I?ve made a number of changes to the attached motion and also raised a 
couple of questions for consideration.

On the substantive issues.

Membership:

I have a strong preference to make this a small group and as such opt 
for membership per SG as described in Option 1. My reading of the 
Charter is that Option 1 membership also includes the non-voting 
nominating committee appointee to the Council and the GNSO Leadership 
Team would also serve as ex-officio members. This means 8 members of the 
Council would make up the SSC.

Option 2 would result in the SSC comprising 11 members of the Council.

Diversity:

During our discussions of the charter, some have argued that it should 
be more prescriptive with regards to ensuring that there is a 
fair/balanced rotation among SGs with regard to candidates 
nominated/selected for positions. I agree that this is a consideration 
that the SSC should take into account throughout the selection 
processes, but this consideration should also be balanced in terms of 
ensuring that the candidate also has the necessary skills to make a 
valuable contribution to the role. I believe the language currently in 
the charter adequately provides for diversity and representativeness:

/7.            The SSC shall strive as far as possible to achieve 
balance, representativeness, diversity and sufficient expertise 
appropriate for the applicable selection process./

However, given the SSC will be conducting a review of the charter after 
applying it to two selection processes, if the SSC believes this is not 
adequate they can recommend changes.

Selection:

While I have concerns about the use of full consensus, consensus etc. 
primarily because I would hate to think that we would ever be in a 
situation where we have minority view positions coming out of any SSC 
selection process, I think this is something that the SSC could also 
consider when they review the charter.

Thanks

Donna

*From:*council-bounces at gnso.icann.org 
[mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 01, 2017 6:43 PM
*To:* GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject:* [council] Draft Motion: Preliminary Adoption of the GNSO 
Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter

Councilors ?

Attached and copied below, please find a Draft Motion for the adoption 
of the Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Draft Charter (also attached, 
but unchanged since our call).  Note that we still have yet to address 
some open questions on the SSC charter, in particular how the SSC is 
comprised (SGs or Cs), how it reaches its decisions, and whether or not 
to require it to rotate selected candidates.

Please continue discussions on our list in order to make the most of our 
time together in Copenhagen.


Thank you,

J.

*Motion ? Preliminary Adoption of GNSO Standing Selection Committee 
(SSC) Charter*

**

Whereas,

1.The GNSO Council expressed the desire to develop a set of criteria and 
a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to future 
Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the ICANN 
Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to 
appoint, nominate or endorse candidates

2.A small team of Council members worked on such a set of criteria and a 
uniform process which resulted in a proposed Charter to create a GNSO 
Standing Selection Committee that will conduct future selections based 
on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented process (see [include link].

3.The Council reviewed the charter and discussed that as this is a new 
entity and approach, it would be desirable to test out the process and 
criteria outlined in the charter by: 1) Preliminarily adopting the 
charter, 2) Form the SSC, 3) Task the SSC to at a minimum carry out 2 
selection / nomination processes, 4) Review the results as well as the 
selection / nomination process on the basis of input provided by the 
SSC, 5) Confirm the GNSO SSC Charter as is, or, as modified based on the 
review.

Resolved,

1.The GNSO Council preliminarily adopts the GNSO Standing Selection 
Committee (SSC) Charter (see [include link] and instructs the GNSO 
Secretariat to launch a call for volunteers per the membership criteria 
outlined in the SSC Charter as soon as possible.

2.The GNSO Council instructs the SSC to begin the review of GNSO 
endorsed candidates for the RDS Review Team, and propose its recommended 
slate of selected Members, along with any Alternates, for Council 
consideration at the latest by its 20 April 2017 meeting.

3.The GNSO Council instructs the SSC to develop the criteria and the 
process for the selection of the GNSO Representative to the Empowered 
Community for GNSO Council consideration by its June 2017 meeting, and 
following the approval by the GNSO Council, carry out the selection 
process for this role.

4.At the completion of these two tasks, the GNSO Council requests the 
SSC to report back to the GNSO Council with its assessment of whether 
the charter provides sufficient guidance and flexibility to carry out 
its work, and/or whether any modifications should be considered.

5.The GNSO Council thanks the small group of volunteers, Susan 
Kawaguchi, Ed Morris, Valerie Tan, and the GNSO Council leadership team, 
for its work on the charter.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170327/588b663c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 28 01:07:32 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:07:32 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
Message-ID: <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>

I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty 
important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably 
somewhat contentious series of tasks.  One might think of such 
personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty, 
integrity, impartiality.   Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them to 
his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start 
discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a 
test of all those qualities....

cheers Stephanie


On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:
>> personalities rather than abilities
> isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?
>
> My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
> that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
> impasse, give it a try.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
>> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
>> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
>> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
>> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
>> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring,
>> personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
>> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too
>> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
>> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
>> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding
>> taking this approach?
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.
>>>
>>> Where we are at the moment:
>>>
>>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>>>
>>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
>>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>>
>>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
>>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
>>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>>
>>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>>
>>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
>>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>>
>>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.
>>>
>>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
>>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>
>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>>>>
>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take
>>> place
>>>>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who
>>> are not
>>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we
>>> were
>>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>>> arguments based
>>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>>
>>>>> SP
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>>>> transcribed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion
>>> about
>>>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>>> short for
>>>>>> that already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
>>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
>>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
>>> out at Council.
>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest
>>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> represented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
>>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
>>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
>>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
>>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
>>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>>> assessing the candidates?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe
>>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
>>> "alternates" approach works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for
>>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>> - URGENT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>> applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>> recommendations for
>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>>> its 20
>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the
>>> GNSO
>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>> member(s) to
>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>>> <mailto: [g
>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 AVG.
>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>> -- 
>>> ------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170327/a64478e2/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Mar 28 01:36:42 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:36:42 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>

Hi, all-

I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing

We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to assess the candidates.

Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below, on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS Review ? and we need people on that call.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at GMAIL.COM>

I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably somewhat contentious series of tasks. One might think of such personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty, integrity, impartiality. Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a test of all those qualities....

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:

personalities rather than abilities

isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?

My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
impasse, give it a try.

avri

On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:

The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring,
personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too
long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding
taking this approach?

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
From:
mshears at cdt.org
To:
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Hi all

I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.

Where we are at the moment:

We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.

There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
along to little avail and to some criticism.

There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
are candidates and 1 for process concerns.

We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
experience and representativeness including of constituencies

Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.

The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.

I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.

Thanks in advance.

Matthew

On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Dear all,

As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.

I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.

In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
this and I trust he gets it done in time.

Tapani

On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin

(
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
) wrote:

I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take

place

without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who

are not

on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we

were

going to have an open discussion on the PC list.

I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all

arguments based

on what makes the best slate of candidates.

SP

On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Stefania and Stephanie,

I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?

If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
transcribed?

That would not ... be exactly transparent.

Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion

about

the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
say, 5 minutes to speak might work.

A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too

short for

that already.

As for the qualifications, two points:

First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
we can do whatever we like.

Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
on her or his plate already.

Tapani

On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (
Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
) wrote:

Thanks, Steph.
I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC
[<ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is)
per conto di

Stephanie Perrin
[<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)

Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
A:
mshears at cdt.org
;
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

So we have a day left to get this sorted.

1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?

2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying

characteristics we are looking for might be?

3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that

actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
out at Council.

SP

On 2017-03-25 20:00,
mshears at cdt.org[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
wrote:
Hi

The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.

So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness

including of constituencies as criteria.

My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to

discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest
our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
suggestions are welcome.

Matthew

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Stephanie Perrin
[<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
To:
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is[<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is)
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Ayden,

I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that

for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies

represented.

I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,

I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of

work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.

Tapani

On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline

(
icann at ferdeline.com[<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
) wrote:

My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to

those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
assessing the candidates?

- Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears

[<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
wrote:

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline

yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe
that we should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.

Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
"alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for

the selection process. Thoughts welcome.

Matthew

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200

From: Tapani Tarvainen

[<ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>](mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO)[<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>](mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO)

Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee

- URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,

please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you

think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and

it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make

sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--

Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine

[<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>](mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org)[<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>](mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org)
-----

Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see

https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf
[gnso.icann.org]
<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=

[<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=)
.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where

applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the

selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as

ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered

Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant

applicants/candidates,

3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment

recommendations for

review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all

interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:

- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the

Contracted Party House;

- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business

Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;

- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder

Group; and,

- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee

appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and

selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory

Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by

its 20

April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC

to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the

GNSO

Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council

consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their

member(s) to

the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat

(
gnso-secs at icann.org[<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)
)<mailto: [g

<mailto: [g
[<mailto: [g
nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))>](mailto:nso-secs@<a class=)[<mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>](mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29)
by 27 March at the

latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30

March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

_______________________________________________
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 AVG.
http://www.avg.com

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

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/20170327/318aed90/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Tue Mar 28 13:31:02 2017
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 06:31:02 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <094a074a-70a7-2a92-7dfe-48a45b02d73c@apc.org>

Hi,

Not bad.  I would give it a try.

If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
these issues could help draw out the choices.

To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and see if
you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
enough cumulatively about the candidates.

Just a thought:  I would suggest that people stop discussing the process
until after this decision is made.

Good luck

avri


On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Hi, all-
>
> I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess
> the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the
> Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to
> revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it
> is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing
>
> We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the
> fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to
> assess the candidates. 
>
> Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below,
> on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS
> Review ? and we need people on that call.
>
> - Ayden 
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>> <raquino at GMAIL.COM>
>>
>>
>> I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty
>> important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably
>> somewhat contentious series of tasks.  One might think of such
>> personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty,
>> integrity, impartiality.   Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them
>> to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start
>> discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a
>> test of all those qualities....
>>
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:
>>>> personalities rather than abilities
>>>>
>>> isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?
>>>
>>> My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
>>> that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
>>> impasse, give it a try.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>
>>>> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
>>>> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
>>>> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
>>>> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
>>>> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
>>>> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring,
>>>> personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
>>>> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too
>>>> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
>>>> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
>>>> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding
>>>> taking this approach?
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>>>>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where we are at the moment:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>>>>>
>>>>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
>>>>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
>>>>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
>>>>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>>>>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
>>>>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
>>>>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
>>>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>>>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>>>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
>>>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>>>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
>>>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>
>>>>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take
>>>>>>>
>>>>> place
>>>>>
>>>>>>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who
>>>>>>>
>>>>> are not
>>>>>
>>>>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we
>>>>>>>
>>>>> were
>>>>>
>>>>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>>>>>>>
>>>>> arguments based
>>>>>
>>>>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>>>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>>>>>> transcribed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> about
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>>>>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>>>>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> short for
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>>>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>>>>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>>>>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>>>>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>>>>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
>>>>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
>>>>> out at Council.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>>>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest
>>>>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>>>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> represented.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
>>>>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>>>>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
>>>>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>>>>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
>>>>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
>>>>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
>>>>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>>>>> assessing the candidates?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe
>>>>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
>>>>> "alternates" approach works.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> - URGENT
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> applicants/candidates,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> recommendations for
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>>>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> its 20
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> GNSO
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> member(s) to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>>>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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 AVG.
>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



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



From mshears at cdt.org  Tue Mar 28 14:39:18 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:39:18 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <094a074a-70a7-2a92-7dfe-48a45b02d73c@apc.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
 <094a074a-70a7-2a92-7dfe-48a45b02d73c@apc.org>
Message-ID: <8c673db4-2696-4e43-8569-2d1eb31ca445@cdt.org>

+ 1 Avri

Also, thanks Ayden for putting the google doc together (see below).  All 
- if there are other criteria that should be considered please add them 
today.

I think Avri is right - given the diversity of views among the PC 
members who will be deciding, a call/discussion using the criteria for 
guidance is probably the best (only?) way forward.

I will circulate a doodle for the "deciders" and try and set up a time.

Thanks for your patience and understanding as we move this forward.

Matthew


On 28/03/2017 11:31, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not bad.  I would give it a try.
>
> If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
> these issues could help draw out the choices.
>
> To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
> call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and see if
> you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
> enough cumulatively about the candidates.
>
> Just a thought:  I would suggest that people stop discussing the process
> until after this decision is made.
>
> Good luck
>
> avri
>
>
> On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> Hi, all-
>>
>> I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess
>> the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the
>> Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to
>> revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it
>> is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the
>> fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to
>> assess the candidates.
>>
>> Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below,
>> on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS
>> Review ? and we need people on that call.
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>> <raquino at GMAIL.COM>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty
>>> important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably
>>> somewhat contentious series of tasks.  One might think of such
>>> personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty,
>>> integrity, impartiality.   Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them
>>> to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start
>>> discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a
>>> test of all those qualities....
>>>
>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:
>>>>> personalities rather than abilities
>>>>>
>>>> isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?
>>>>
>>>> My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
>>>> that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
>>>> impasse, give it a try.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
>>>>> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
>>>>> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
>>>>> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
>>>>> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
>>>>> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring,
>>>>> personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
>>>>> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too
>>>>> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
>>>>> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
>>>>> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding
>>>>> taking this approach?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>>>>>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where we are at the moment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
>>>>>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
>>>>>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
>>>>>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>>>>>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
>>>>>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
>>>>>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
>>>>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>>>>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>>>>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
>>>>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>>>>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
>>>>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> place
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> are not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> arguments based
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>>>>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>>>>>>> transcribed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>>>>>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>>>>>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> short for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>>>>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>>>>>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>>>>>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>>>>>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>>>>>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>>>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>>>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
>>>>>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
>>>>>> out at Council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>>>>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest
>>>>>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>>>>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> represented.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>>>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
>>>>>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>>>>>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
>>>>>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>>>>>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
>>>>>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
>>>>>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
>>>>>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>>>>>> assessing the candidates?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe
>>>>>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
>>>>>> "alternates" approach works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> - URGENT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> recommendations for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>>>>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> its 20
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> GNSO
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> member(s) to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>>>>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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 AVG.
>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

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



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Mar 28 17:17:23 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:17:23 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG PC NPOC nominee
Message-ID: <20170328141722.irqwrcoxcccd7sk2@roller.tarvainen.info>

FYI:

----- Forwarded message from Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com> -----

Dear Tapani

Greetings. I am happy to inform you that the NPOC EC has decided that Juan
Manuel Rojas will replace Martin on the NCSG PC.

Yours

Klaus

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


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 28 18:48:23 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:48:23 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG PC NPOC nominee
In-Reply-To: <20170328141722.irqwrcoxcccd7sk2@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170328141722.irqwrcoxcccd7sk2@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <d4428e10-0edf-77f1-3f04-c2b132c8949d@mail.utoronto.ca>

Welcome to Juan Manuel! I was looking at the GNSO calendar for this 
month, the next meeting is April 20.  We always seem to be rushing with 
our policy meeting these days, and given that the week before the 
meeting is Easter/Passover for some of us (and holidays for many) I was 
wondering if we could schedule the next NCSG policy discussion for the 
week of April 3rd.  This would also give us time to discuss potential 
motions before the deadline.

Kind regards,

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-03-28 10:17, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> FYI:
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com> -----
>
> Dear Tapani
>
> Greetings. I am happy to inform you that the NPOC EC has decided that Juan
> Manuel Rojas will replace Martin on the NCSG PC.
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170328/e2554ae1/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Mar 28 21:56:05 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:56:05 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMz4PT82BVnhhkdr16RUA7K-u0o1odXGNjvJu41xbR7WOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <494012de-7e29-b163-31e7-4f7d306e06b7@cdt.org>
 <mB_HROUoI-tPrdN74U6l5qCOzVQAfIr7LxbF7bltGomK4ZWjicNHQEY9th5I9RRqJ0t3VshTT9BNLfXP1fV5djCiZyhG0odvzy7TTK35l0A=@ferdeline.com>
 <20170325072428.6zcmwkmnirwlzig3@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <ce14f5c3-4adf-091c-16e7-d792de1f03b1@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <58d7049a.dea2df0a.dcbbd.fb3b@mx.google.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <6b6559c4-a4ac-768c-340b-32dc7c0f3c45@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAMokdMz4PT82BVnhhkdr16RUA7K-u0o1odXGNjvJu41xbR7WOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b008ed5b-f938-8c9a-4a7f-c1d755021c36@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks for your message Renata.  It is hard to keep up with the state of 
play, but I think we are now back to having a confidential discussion 
tomorrow without the candidates, Matt is organizing.  We are late in 
submitting names, as the first meeting is scheduled for April 30, but 
doubtless we shall get there eventually.

Best,

Stephanie


On 2017-03-28 14:44, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote:
> Dear Stephanie and all
>
> Thanks for your message.
> I think the PC NCSG participants have a lot to discuss with this slate
> of highly qualified candidates. I wish slates like these always happen
> for selections.
> I'm not on the PC NCSG list and I've also seen that some part of the
> discussions members suggested to do it without the candidates, which I
> can also understand.
> If I am needed to provide any further information than that sent on my
> candidacy statement, I'll hope that someone emails me.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> This comment is unfair, in my view, Tapani.  It was not a long, secret
>> discussion.  I asked the question on the public list at 19:58 amsterdam
>> time, as you can see below.  Stefi responded at 15:03 EDT that contestants
>> should be removed.  I put together the list and forgot you (sorry, but these
>> things happen, it was not deliberate) at16:04 EDT, asking if I had forgotten
>> anyone.  I added you the next morning after Matt pointed out I forgot you at
>> 10:23 EDT.  I have forwarded three messages you missed. At any point you
>> could have fired off an email inquiring about the discussion, and whether
>> you had been omitted, had you noticed that the discussion on the PC list had
>> died following what appeared to be agreement to remove candidates.  I don't
>> really think the decision making on that was not transparent.
>> As I indicated earlier, it is only fair to add the other two contestants to
>> the discussion, now that it is on the PC list.  I do not believe they are
>> members. Accordingly, I am adding Renata and Kris.....Welcome to the
>> discussion on the Policy Committee list regarding choosing our
>> representatives for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>>
>> Cheers Stephanie
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 15:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>
>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>>
>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>
>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>> without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are not
>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>
>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>
>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>> transcribed?
>>
>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>
>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>
>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>> that already.
>>
>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>
>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>> we can do whatever we like.
>>
>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>> on her or his plate already.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Steph.
>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>
>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>
>> 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>
>> 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we
>> are looking for might be?
>>
>> 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually
>> might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort
>> this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>
>> SP
>>
>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>
>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of
>> constituencies as criteria.
>>
>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the
>> candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is
>> not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see
>> if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>
>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>
>>
>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>
>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>
>> represented.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>
>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>
>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the
>> SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness,
>> diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three
>> representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN
>> community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer),
>> diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender,
>> if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness
>> (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions
>> though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic
>> a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>
>>
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>
>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and
>> that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add
>> her candidacy to the mix.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5
>> candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the
>> selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>
>> Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
>>
>> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>>
>> From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>> [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
>>
>> To:      Matthew Shears
>> [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing
>> Selection Committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO
>> work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and
>> also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as
>> GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>>
>>
>>
>> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and
>> appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more
>> involved to find their way into GNSO.
>>
>>
>>
>> My SOI
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>>
>>
>>
>> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it.
>> There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so
>> please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this
>> application.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>
>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>
>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>
>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>
>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>
>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>
>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>
>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>
>>
>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>
>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>
>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>
>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>
>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>
>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>
>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>
>> interested parties.
>>
>>
>>
>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>
>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party
>> House;
>>
>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency,
>> the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers
>> and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>
>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>
>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the
>> GNSO Council.
>>
>>
>>
>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>
>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>
>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>
>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>
>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>
>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>
>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>
>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>
>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g
>> <mailto: [g
>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>> by 27 March at the
>>
>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>
>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Marika Konings
>>
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170328/ed580475/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Mar 29 01:06:59 2017
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:06:59 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [] My assessment of .homenet as described during the
 WG session yesterday.
In-Reply-To: <DAC83E33-A206-4EAA-BC96-E26ACCC013A6@icann.org>
References: <DAC83E33-A206-4EAA-BC96-E26ACCC013A6@icann.org>
Message-ID: <42dc95c8-8cd1-086a-c36f-21401430f534@acm.org>


FYI update on the status of special use names being delegated.

This could become a Council issue at some point, so, figured worth
passing on. I will continue tracking this.

avri



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:     [DNSOP] My assessment of .homenet as described during the
WG session yesterday.
Date:     Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:32:31 +0000
From:     Terry Manderson <terry.manderson at icann.org>
To:     HOMENET <homenet at ietf.org>
CC:     dnsop at ietf.org <dnsop at ietf.org>



Dear HOMENET and DNSOP WG(s),

Wearing the INT AD hat.

Firstly, thank you to the DNSOP WG for the deep review, thoughts, and
considered responses to my request for review.

Secondly, my apologies for not sharing my throughs before the HOMENET
session. It would have been impractical to do so as this is a very
(VERY) fluid situation with IETF leadership also engaged in discussions.

This is simply an iteration of my description of the current situation
as delivered yesterday. Do be aware that conversations are continuing
and you should NOT take this as a declarative statement. During the
HOMENET WG session I specified that for this topic I am comfortable
answering _ clarifying _ questions. The same applies here. My answers
may or may not change due to the fluid nature of the concern and I hope
you appreciate that.

My summary of the situation is this.

1) .homenet _COULD_ be added to the special use domain registry based on
RFC6761

2) The expected future operation of HOMENET resolution for DNSSEC
validating stub resolvers requires a break in the DNSSEC chain of trust.

3) To achieve "2", the document _additionally_ asks IANA to insert an
insecure delegation into the root zone

4) The ask for "3" is not covered in IETF policy terms, in fact it tries
to put an entry into someone else's registry (the root zone), and will
require a set of collaborative discussions with the ICANN community and
a new process that handles this situation. There are no expectations
that this process will be defined in a reasonable time for the uses of
HOMENET.


Options, possibly not an exhaustive list

A) seek a .homenet special use domain with the request for an insecure
delegation in the root zone. (This is what the document asks for NOW,
and here we are)

B) seek a .homenet special use domain WITHOUT the delegation request AND
ask the IETF/IESG/IAB to commence the discussion with the ICANN
community to achieve an insecure delegation

c) seek a <SOMETHING>.arpa insecure special use delegation

d) go for "B" and if that doesn't work shift to "C"


Each of these have different positive and negatives in a raw technical
sense, UI design desires, and policy and political frames.

Again, this situation is fluid and as discussions evolve I will provide
more information when it is appropriate. In the mean-time I would very
much like everyone to take a calming breath and understand that I am
taking a very pragmatic view of this concern.

Cheers,
Terry
INT AD



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar 29 02:21:16 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:21:16 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <5AWWdA-AZj2yPYvByf3ECDORN2m2n1w80LvpvDjBhyeOEtTsWkmhgPMp81wO6iObisqO4aD9jCXB6IsEBYeEEP-OHvTZgvnbuLqlbrWuUA4=@ferdeline.com>

Greetings, all-

In the absence of candidate statements, I would like to propose that we collect candidate CVs to aid in our evaluations tomorrow. This is especially important given we have amongst us candidates who some of us have not personally worked alongside before.

Unless there are any objections to this proposal, would candidates kindly send through their CV [either to the list mailing address, or to me off-list, and I will circulate privately to the assessors] so that we can objectively assess all applications. Thank you!

Best wishes,

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:36 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:36
From: icann at ferdeline.com
To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at GMAIL.COM>

Hi, all-

I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing

We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to assess the candidates.

Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below, on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS Review ? and we need people on that call.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at GMAIL.COM>

I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably somewhat contentious series of tasks. One might think of such personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty, integrity, impartiality. Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a test of all those qualities....

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:

personalities rather than abilities

isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?

My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
impasse, give it a try.

avri

On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:

The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring,
personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too
long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding
taking this approach?

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
From:
mshears at cdt.org
To:
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Hi all

I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.

Where we are at the moment:

We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.

There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
along to little avail and to some criticism.

There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
are candidates and 1 for process concerns.

We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
experience and representativeness including of constituencies

Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.

The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.

I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.

Thanks in advance.

Matthew

On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Dear all,

As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.

I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.

In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
this and I trust he gets it done in time.

Tapani

On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin

(
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
) wrote:

I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take

place

without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who

are not

on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we

were

going to have an open discussion on the PC list.

I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all

arguments based

on what makes the best slate of candidates.

SP

On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Stefania and Stephanie,

I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?

If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
transcribed?

That would not ... be exactly transparent.

Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion

about

the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
say, 5 minutes to speak might work.

A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too

short for

that already.

As for the qualifications, two points:

First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
we can do whatever we like.

Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
on her or his plate already.

Tapani

On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (
Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
) wrote:

Thanks, Steph.
I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC
[<ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is)
per conto di

Stephanie Perrin
[<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)

Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
A:
mshears at cdt.org
;
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

So we have a day left to get this sorted.

1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?

2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying

characteristics we are looking for might be?

3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that

actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
out at Council.

SP

On 2017-03-25 20:00,
mshears at cdt.org[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
wrote:
Hi

The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.

So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness

including of constituencies as criteria.

My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to

discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest
our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
suggestions are welcome.

Matthew

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Stephanie Perrin
[<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
To:
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is[<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is)
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Ayden,

I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that

for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies

represented.

I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,

I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of

work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.

Tapani

On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline

(
icann at ferdeline.com[<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
) wrote:

My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to

those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
assessing the candidates?

- Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears

[<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
wrote:

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline

yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe
that we should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.

Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
"alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for

the selection process. Thoughts welcome.

Matthew

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200

From: Tapani Tarvainen

[<ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>](mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO)[<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>](mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO)

Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee

- URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,

please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you

think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and

it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make

sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--

Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine

[<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>](mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org)[<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>](mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org)
-----

Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see

https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf
[gnso.icann.org]
<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=

[<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=)
.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where

applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the

selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as

ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered

Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant

applicants/candidates,

3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment

recommendations for

review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all

interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:

- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the

Contracted Party House;

- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business

Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;

- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder

Group; and,

- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee

appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and

selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory

Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by

its 20

April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC

to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the

GNSO

Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council

consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their

member(s) to

the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat

(
gnso-secs at icann.org[<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)
)<mailto: [g

<mailto: [g
[<mailto: [g
nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))>](mailto:nso-secs@<a class=)[<mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>](mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29)
by 27 March at the

latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30

March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

_______________________________________________
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 AVG.
http://www.avg.com

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

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/20170328/db3eed06/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar 29 02:25:50 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:25:50 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <b008ed5b-f938-8c9a-4a7f-c1d755021c36@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <6b6559c4-a4ac-768c-340b-32dc7c0f3c45@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAMokdMz4PT82BVnhhkdr16RUA7K-u0o1odXGNjvJu41xbR7WOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b008ed5b-f938-8c9a-4a7f-c1d755021c36@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <qaVyU53JcQuc0ul50-IrU0QD9Vk8LysWubq0G82k4iZHon-6j-dCFFYcxcKP3ZffvUPGWV8ZCPX2nlKEmmuDfJEa0i2twEkygwNKFwmZMb8=@ferdeline.com>

That is my understanding as well, Stephanie.

Just a quick clarification that the first meeting of the SSC is this week, on March 30th.

It looks like RySG has appointed Maxim, RrSG has appointed Fr?d?ric, the BC has appointed Susan [though surely she must be recusing herself from the RDS Review discussions], Lori will be there from the IPC, Osvaldo from ISPCP, and Julf from NomCom.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 28 March 2017 7:56 PM
UTC Time: 28 March 2017 18:56
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com

Thanks for your message Renata. It is hard to keep up with the state of play, but I think we are now back to having a confidential discussion tomorrow without the candidates, Matt is organizing. We are late in submitting names, as the first meeting is scheduled for April 30, but doubtless we shall get there eventually.

Best,

Stephanie

On 2017-03-28 14:44, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote:

Dear Stephanie and all

Thanks for your message.
I think the PC NCSG participants have a lot to discuss with this slate
of highly qualified candidates. I wish slates like these always happen
for selections.
I'm not on the PC NCSG list and I've also seen that some part of the
discussions members suggested to do it without the candidates, which I
can also understand.
If I am needed to provide any further information than that sent on my
candidacy statement, I'll hope that someone emails me.

Thanks

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin
[<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
wrote:

This comment is unfair, in my view, Tapani.  It was not a long, secret
discussion.  I asked the question on the public list at 19:58 amsterdam
time, as you can see below.  Stefi responded at 15:03 EDT that contestants
should be removed.  I put together the list and forgot you (sorry, but these
things happen, it was not deliberate) at16:04 EDT, asking if I had forgotten
anyone.  I added you the next morning after Matt pointed out I forgot you at
10:23 EDT.  I have forwarded three messages you missed. At any point you
could have fired off an email inquiring about the discussion, and whether
you had been omitted, had you noticed that the discussion on the PC list had
died following what appeared to be agreement to remove candidates.  I don't
really think the decision making on that was not transparent.
As I indicated earlier, it is only fair to add the other two contestants to
the discussion, now that it is on the PC list.  I do not believe they are
members. Accordingly, I am adding Renata and Kris.....Welcome to the
discussion on the Policy Committee list regarding choosing our
representatives for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

Cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-27 15:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Dear all,

As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.

I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.

In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
this and I trust he gets it done in time.

Tapani

On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
) wrote:

I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are not
on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
going to have an open discussion on the PC list.

I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
on what makes the best slate of candidates.

SP

On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Stefania and Stephanie,

I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?

If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
transcribed?

That would not ... be exactly transparent.

Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
say, 5 minutes to speak might work.

A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
that already.

As for the qualifications, two points:

First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
we can do whatever we like.

Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
on her or his plate already.

Tapani

On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (
Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu
) wrote:

Thanks, Steph.
I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC
[<ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is)
per conto di Stephanie Perrin
[<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
A:
mshears at cdt.org
;
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

So we have a day left to get this sorted.

1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?

2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we
are looking for might be?

3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually
might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort
this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.

SP

On 2017-03-25 20:00,
mshears at cdt.org[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
wrote:
Hi

The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.

So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of
constituencies as criteria.

My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the
candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is
not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see
if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.

Matthew

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Stephanie Perrin
[<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
To:
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is[<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is)
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Ayden,

I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that

for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies

represented.

I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,

I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of

work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.

Tapani

On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
(
icann at ferdeline.com[<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
) wrote:

My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the
SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness,
diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three
representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN
community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer),
diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender,
if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness
(ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions
though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic
a rubric for assessing the candidates?

- Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
[<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
wrote:

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and
that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add
her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5
candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the
selection process. Thoughts welcome.

Matthew

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

Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300

From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro
[
[<raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)[<mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
](
mailto:raquino at gmail.com
)

To:      Matthew Shears
[
[<mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)[<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
](
mailto:mshears at cdt.org
)

Dear Matthew

I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing
Selection Committee.

I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO
work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and
also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.

I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as
GNSO Review and past working group SCI.

This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and
appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more
involved to find their way into GNSO.

My SOI
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it.
There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so
please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this
application.

Thanks

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200

From: Tapani Tarvainen
[<ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>](mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO)[<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>](mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO)
Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,

please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you

think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and

it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make

sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--

Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
[<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>](mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org)[<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>](mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org)
-----

Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf
[gnso.icann.org]
<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=

[<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=)
.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where

applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the

selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as

ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered

Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,

3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for

review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all

interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:

- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party
House;

- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency,
the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers
and Connectivity Providers Constituency;

- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,

- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the
GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and

selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory

Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20

April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC

to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO

Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council

consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to

the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat

(
gnso-secs at icann.org[<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org)
)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g
<mailto: [g
[<mailto: [g
nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))>](mailto:nso-secs@<a class=)[<mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>](mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29)
by 27 March at the

latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30

March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

_______________________________________________
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/20170328/feb794f5/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Mar 29 03:08:33 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:08:33 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
In-Reply-To: <qaVyU53JcQuc0ul50-IrU0QD9Vk8LysWubq0G82k4iZHon-6j-dCFFYcxcKP3ZffvUPGWV8ZCPX2nlKEmmuDfJEa0i2twEkygwNKFwmZMb8=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f8e70fd0-03a4-129b-b24a-b03e72d89235@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <6b6559c4-a4ac-768c-340b-32dc7c0f3c45@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAMokdMz4PT82BVnhhkdr16RUA7K-u0o1odXGNjvJu41xbR7WOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b008ed5b-f938-8c9a-4a7f-c1d755021c36@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <qaVyU53JcQuc0ul50-IrU0QD9Vk8LysWubq0G82k4iZHon-6j-dCFFYcxcKP3ZffvUPGWV8ZCPX2nlKEmmuDfJEa0i2twEkygwNKFwmZMb8=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <a4cff177-d26d-1ee6-6104-3f6625e1d9b5@mail.utoronto.ca>

My apologies, yes I meant March 30.

SP


On 2017-03-28 19:25, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> That is my understanding as well, Stephanie.
>
> Just a quick clarification that the first meeting of the SSC is this 
> week, on March 30th.
>
> It looks like RySG has appointed Maxim, RrSG has appointed Fr?d?ric, 
> the BC has appointed Susan [though surely she must be recusing herself 
> from the RDS Review discussions], Lori will be there from the IPC, 
> Osvaldo from ISPCP, and Julf from NomCom.
>
> - Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>> Local Time: 28 March 2017 7:56 PM
>> UTC Time: 28 March 2017 18:56
>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your message Renata.  It is hard to keep up with the state 
>> of play, but I think we are now back to having a confidential 
>> discussion tomorrow without the candidates, Matt is organizing.  We 
>> are late in submitting names, as the first meeting is scheduled for 
>> April 30, but doubtless we shall get there eventually.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-28 14:44, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote:
>>> Dear Stephanie and all
>>>
>>> Thanks for your message.
>>> I think the PC NCSG participants have a lot to discuss with this slate
>>> of highly qualified candidates. I wish slates like these always happen
>>> for selections.
>>> I'm not on the PC NCSG list and I've also seen that some part of the
>>> discussions members suggested to do it without the candidates, which I
>>> can also understand.
>>> If I am needed to provide any further information than that sent on my
>>> candidacy statement, I'll hope that someone emails me.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> This comment is unfair, in my view, Tapani.  It was not a long, secret
>>>> discussion.  I asked the question on the public list at 19:58 amsterdam
>>>> time, as you can see below.  Stefi responded at 15:03 EDT that contestants
>>>> should be removed.  I put together the list and forgot you (sorry, but these
>>>> things happen, it was not deliberate) at16:04 EDT, asking if I had forgotten
>>>> anyone.  I added you the next morning after Matt pointed out I forgot you at
>>>> 10:23 EDT.  I have forwarded three messages you missed. At any point you
>>>> could have fired off an email inquiring about the discussion, and whether
>>>> you had been omitted, had you noticed that the discussion on the PC list had
>>>> died following what appeared to be agreement to remove candidates.  I don't
>>>> really think the decision making on that was not transparent.
>>>> As I indicated earlier, it is only fair to add the other two contestants to
>>>> the discussion, now that it is on the PC list.  I do not believe they are
>>>> members. Accordingly, I am adding Renata and Kris.....Welcome to the
>>>> discussion on the Policy Committee list regarding choosing our
>>>> representatives for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-27 15:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>
>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.
>>>>
>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take place
>>>> without the candidates there.  Further, we have two candidates who are not
>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we were
>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>
>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all arguments based
>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>>
>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>> transcribed?
>>>>
>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion about
>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>
>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too short for
>>>> that already.
>>>>
>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>
>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>
>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Da: NCSG-PC<ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>  per conto di Stephanie Perrin
>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>> A:mshears at cdt.org;ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying characteristics we
>>>> are looking for might be?
>>>>
>>>> 3.  While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that actually
>>>> might be hard to achieve.  I dont think anyone will argue about how we sort
>>>> this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it out at Council.
>>>>
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00,mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>  wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>
>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness including of
>>>> constituencies as criteria.
>>>>
>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to discuss the
>>>> candidates based on these criteria and try and reach agreement.  If that is
>>>> not possible or appropriate we can each suggest our preferred trio and see
>>>> if we have any rough consensus.  Other suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>> To:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that
>>>>
>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>
>>>> represented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of
>>>>
>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to those of the
>>>> SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of representativeness,
>>>> diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would hope our three
>>>> representatives have a mixture of experience levels within the ICANN
>>>> community (I would welcome there being one slot set aside for a newcomer),
>>>> diversity (I would not support all three candidates being the same gender,
>>>> if all candidates are sufficiently qualified), and representativeness
>>>> (ideally the three representatives will be from different geographic regions
>>>> though I appreciate this is an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic
>>>> a rubric for assessing the candidates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline yesterday and
>>>> that she has been having Internet challenges I believe that we should add
>>>> her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier. Obviously now with 5
>>>> candidates it is perhaps less clear that the "alternates" approach works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for the
>>>> selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>
>>>> Subject:      Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>
>>>> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:13:52 -0300
>>>>
>>>> From:      Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>> [<raquino at gmail.com><mailto:raquino at gmail.com>](mailto:raquino at gmail.com)
>>>>
>>>> To:      Matthew Shears
>>>> [<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>](mailto:mshears at cdt.org)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to express interest in serving as a volunteer on the GNSO Standing
>>>> Selection Committee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've joined several working groups on ICANN and have learned about the GNSO
>>>> work in 3 fellowship opportunities so far (1 as a fellow and 2 as coach) and
>>>> also participated as NCUC supported traveller in ICANN55.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've also been on working groups related to reviews and procedures such as
>>>> GNSO Review and past working group SCI.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This would be an opportunity to learn more about working groups, teams and
>>>> appointments and also to help other community members who want to get more
>>>> involved to find their way into GNSO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My SOI
>>>>
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Renata+Aquino+Ribeiro+SOI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had the impression I had sent this email before but you didn't receive it.
>>>> There are several flaws on my internet connection in Brazil this week so
>>>> please let me know if you received it and if there is still time for this
>>>> application.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>
>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee - URGENT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>
>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you
>>>>
>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and
>>>>
>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make
>>>>
>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>  -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>>
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>
>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>
>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the
>>>>
>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as
>>>>
>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered
>>>>
>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates,
>>>>
>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for
>>>>
>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>
>>>> interested parties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the Contracted Party
>>>> House;
>>>>
>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business Constituency,
>>>> the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the Internet Service Providers
>>>> and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>
>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and,
>>>>
>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee appointees to the
>>>> GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>
>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory
>>>>
>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20
>>>>
>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>
>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO
>>>>
>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their member(s) to
>>>>
>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g <mailto: [g
>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>> <mailto: [g 
>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>
>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>
>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for
>>>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20170328/e71b34e1/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Mar 29 03:31:45 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:31:45 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG PC NPOC nominee
In-Reply-To: <d4428e10-0edf-77f1-3f04-c2b132c8949d@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20170328141722.irqwrcoxcccd7sk2@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <d4428e10-0edf-77f1-3f04-c2b132c8949d@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <-PedVRJMGAEwO29bRAAkdwcQKzmxK8bybX8PP6QDo-rtrUi1wvY8L4Ns0nabmDn-r8pY26qyZUbMkxZ8FFVrv5MsmnnGBsbQE3AhlX9iMAQ=@ferdeline.com>

Excellent idea, Stephanie, to have this discussion next week. Next week I am free each day except for 5 April. I hope we can add public comments to the agenda or arrange a separate call to discuss them. There are 11 opportunities for public comment closing over the next five weeks, including the IGO-INGO access to curative rights protection mechanisms comment period which closes on Thursday, and I think we need to be responding to at least 9 of them...

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG PC NPOC nominee
Local Time: 28 March 2017 4:48 PM
UTC Time: 28 March 2017 15:48
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Welcome to Juan Manuel! I was looking at the GNSO calendar for this month, the next meeting is April 20. We always seem to be rushing with our policy meeting these days, and given that the week before the meeting is Easter/Passover for some of us (and holidays for many) I was wondering if we could schedule the next NCSG policy discussion for the week of April 3rd. This would also give us time to discuss potential motions before the deadline.

Kind regards,

Stephanie Perrin

On 2017-03-28 10:17, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

FYI:

----- Forwarded message from Klaus Stoll
[<kdrstoll at gmail.com>](mailto:kdrstoll at gmail.com)
-----

Dear Tapani

Greetings. I am happy to inform you that the NPOC EC has decided that Juan
Manuel Rojas will replace Martin on the NCSG PC.

Yours

Klaus

----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is

https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170328/29468e7a/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Mar 29 04:23:36 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:23:36 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG PC NPOC nominee
In-Reply-To: <-PedVRJMGAEwO29bRAAkdwcQKzmxK8bybX8PP6QDo-rtrUi1wvY8L4Ns0nabmDn-r8pY26qyZUbMkxZ8FFVrv5MsmnnGBsbQE3AhlX9iMAQ=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20170328141722.irqwrcoxcccd7sk2@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <d4428e10-0edf-77f1-3f04-c2b132c8949d@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <-PedVRJMGAEwO29bRAAkdwcQKzmxK8bybX8PP6QDo-rtrUi1wvY8L4Ns0nabmDn-r8pY26qyZUbMkxZ8FFVrv5MsmnnGBsbQE3AhlX9iMAQ=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <ce71f834-ac66-8ebc-af6b-f7d78b01b3a5@mail.utoronto.ca>

Yes, I am pretty sure we had some volunteers for a few of these in 
Copenhagen, but it is indeed a breath-taking amount of work.  I have 
pasted them below....
cheers SP


    Open for Public Comment

Open Date
Close Date


        GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights
        Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en>

20 Jan 2017 23:59 UTC
30 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        Reference Japanese Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the Second
        Level
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/japanese-lgr-second-level-2017-01-27-en>

27 Jan 2017 23:59 UTC
31 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-draft-recs-2017-02-21-en>

21 Feb 2017 23:59 UTC
10 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Implementation Guidelines
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/idn-guidelines-2017-03-03-en>

3 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
17 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        Interim Paper Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Names of
        Countries and Territories as Top Level Domains
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-uctn-interim-paper-2017-02-24-en>

24 Feb 2017 23:59 UTC
21 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        Enhancing Accountability Guidelines for Good Faith
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-guidelines-good-faith-2017-03-07-en>

7 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
24 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team
        Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en>

7 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
27 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        ICANN's Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget, and Five-Year
        Operating Plan Update
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en>

8 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
28 Apr 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
        Policy Development Process
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en>

22 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
1 May 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-10-en>

11 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
5 May 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>


        Proposal for Ethiopic Script Root Zone? Label Generation Rules
        (LGR) ?
        <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ethiopic-lgr-2017-03-23-en>

23 Mar 2017 23:59 UTC
5 May 2017 23:59 UTC
Log in to follow <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>

On 2017-03-28 20:31, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Excellent idea, Stephanie, to have this discussion next week. Next 
> week I am free each day except for 5 April. I hope we can add public 
> comments to the agenda or arrange a separate call to discuss them. 
> There are 11 opportunities for public comment closing over the next 
> five weeks, including the IGO-INGO access to curative rights 
> protection mechanisms comment period which closes on Thursday, and I 
> think we need to be responding to at least 9 of them...
>
> Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG PC NPOC nominee
>> Local Time: 28 March 2017 4:48 PM
>> UTC Time: 28 March 2017 15:48
>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>>
>> Welcome to Juan Manuel!  I was looking at the GNSO calendar for this 
>> month, the next meeting is April 20.  We always seem to be rushing 
>> with our policy meeting these days, and given that the week before 
>> the meeting is Easter/Passover for some of us (and holidays for many) 
>> I was wondering if we could schedule the next NCSG policy discussion 
>> for the week of April 3rd.  This would also give us time to discuss 
>> potential motions before the deadline.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>>
>> On 2017-03-28 10:17, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> FYI:
>>>
>>> ----- Forwarded message from Klaus Stoll<kdrstoll at gmail.com>  -----
>>>
>>> Dear Tapani
>>>
>>> Greetings. I am happy to inform you that the NPOC EC has decided that Juan
>>> Manuel Rojas will replace Martin on the NCSG PC.
>>>
>>> Yours
>>>
>>> Klaus
>>>
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170328/c1e240d5/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Mar 29 21:38:46 2017
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:38:46 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
In-Reply-To: <8c673db4-2696-4e43-8569-2d1eb31ca445@cdt.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
 <094a074a-70a7-2a92-7dfe-48a45b02d73c@apc.org>
 <8c673db4-2696-4e43-8569-2d1eb31ca445@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <cb8afb81-4beb-7e2b-b024-8787105d332d@cdt.org>

Hi all

As discussed in earlier emails below, members of the NCSG PC (Ayden, 
Juan Manuel, Marilia, Martin, Stefania, Stephanie and I) met this 
evening for 1.5 hours to review, discuss and hopefully agree our slate 
of three members for the SSC.  You will recall that we have 3 positions 
and 5 candidates - Renata, Kris, Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.  As noted 
below, Ed, Rafik and Poncelet recused themselves from the process given 
their candidacies. Tapani has also recused himself.

We were partially successful.  For a variety of reasons, not least of 
which were their strong candidacies, we agreed that Renata and Poncelet 
should hold two of the three places in the Committee.  We congratulate 
them on their selection.

Kris has significant experience.  But we agreed his profile, while 
impressive, was not as suited for the role as the other candidates.  
This said, we appreciated Kris putting his name forward and look forward 
to meeting with him in Johannesburg and exploring opportunities for 
further engagement in NCSG.

For connectivity and time reasons we did not get to a discussion about 
the third slot - between Ed and Rafik.  This discussion will be resumed 
next week and it is the commitment of the PC to have a decision on the 
third place by Friday the 7th of April.

This means that for the first SSC meeting tomorrow there will be two of 
the three members present.   I have let ICANN staff know.

Thanks for your understanding and support.

Matthew


On 28/03/2017 13:39, matthew shears wrote:
> + 1 Avri
>
> Also, thanks Ayden for putting the google doc together (see below).  
> All - if there are other criteria that should be considered please add 
> them today.
>
> I think Avri is right - given the diversity of views among the PC 
> members who will be deciding, a call/discussion using the criteria for 
> guidance is probably the best (only?) way forward.
>
> I will circulate a doodle for the "deciders" and try and set up a time.
>
> Thanks for your patience and understanding as we move this forward.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 28/03/2017 11:31, avri doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Not bad.  I would give it a try.
>>
>> If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
>> these issues could help draw out the choices.
>>
>> To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
>> call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and see if
>> you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
>> enough cumulatively about the candidates.
>>
>> Just a thought:  I would suggest that people stop discussing the process
>> until after this decision is made.
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>> Hi, all-
>>>
>>> I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess
>>> the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the
>>> Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to
>>> revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it
>>> is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing 
>>>
>>>
>>> We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the
>>> fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to
>>> assess the candidates.
>>>
>>> Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below,
>>> on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS
>>> Review ? and we need people on that call.
>>>
>>> - Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>> <raquino at GMAIL.COM>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty
>>>> important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably
>>>> somewhat contentious series of tasks.  One might think of such
>>>> personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty,
>>>> integrity, impartiality.   Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them
>>>> to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start
>>>> discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a
>>>> test of all those qualities....
>>>>
>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:
>>>>>> personalities rather than abilities
>>>>>>
>>>>> isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?
>>>>>
>>>>> My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
>>>>> that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
>>>>> impasse, give it a try.
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
>>>>>> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
>>>>>> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
>>>>>> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
>>>>>> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
>>>>>> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, 
>>>>>> mirroring,
>>>>>> personalities rather than abilities, information provided 
>>>>>> informally,
>>>>>> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of 
>>>>>> us too
>>>>>> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
>>>>>> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
>>>>>> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations 
>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>> taking this approach?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>>>>>>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective 
>>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where we are at the moment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
>>>>>>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate 
>>>>>>> of three
>>>>>>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 
>>>>>>> because they
>>>>>>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>>>>>>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
>>>>>>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 
>>>>>>> 30th.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how 
>>>>>>> to move
>>>>>>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had 
>>>>>>>> had long
>>>>>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>>>>>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>>>>>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case 
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom 
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without 
>>>>>>>> publicity, but
>>>>>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in 
>>>>>>>> advance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>>>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them 
>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> arguments based
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>>>>>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening 
>>>>>>>>>> in?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>>>>>>>> transcribed?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to 
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving 
>>>>>>>>>> each,
>>>>>>>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> short for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that already.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>>>>>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the 
>>>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd 
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a 
>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has 
>>>>>>>>>> more work
>>>>>>>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the 
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>>>>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or 
>>>>>>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, 
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
>>>>>>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to 
>>>>>>> fight it
>>>>>>> out at Council.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not 
>>>>>>>>>>> running to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>>>>>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each 
>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>>>>>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Stephanie 
>>>>>>>>>>> Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the 
>>>>>>>>>>> voting?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to 
>>>>>>>>>>> add that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> represented.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer 
>>>>>>>>>>> though,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this 
>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>>>>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I 
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>>>>>>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot 
>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>>>>>>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are 
>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three 
>>>>>>> representatives
>>>>>>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate 
>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>>>>>>> assessing the candidates?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I 
>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
>>>>>>> "alternates" approach works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria 
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection 
>>>>>>>>>>> Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - URGENT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain 
>>>>>>>>>>> why you
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done 
>>>>>>>>>>> remotely, and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - 
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> 
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e= 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), 
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related 
>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures 
>>>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the 
>>>>>>>>>>> Empowered
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> recommendations for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections 
>>>>>>>>>>> to all
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as 
>>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>>>>>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration 
>>>>>>>>>>> Directory
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> its 20
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked 
>>>>>>>>>>> the SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GNSO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> member(s) to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29> 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday 30
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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 AVG.
>>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>

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



From avri at acm.org  Thu Mar 30 07:36:16 2017
From: avri at acm.org (avri doria)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:36:16 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
In-Reply-To: <cb8afb81-4beb-7e2b-b024-8787105d332d@cdt.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
 <094a074a-70a7-2a92-7dfe-48a45b02d73c@apc.org>
 <8c673db4-2696-4e43-8569-2d1eb31ca445@cdt.org>
 <cb8afb81-4beb-7e2b-b024-8787105d332d@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <52d44455-b1d1-3c6e-4474-78fe939f1e25@acm.org>

Hi,

Thanks for this update.

I think that in picking one from NCUC and one from NPOC, one from LAC
and one from Africa, one a man and one a woman, you have made an
excellent start of it.  Not only that, both are quite qualified.

And choosing between 2 elected council members, both therefore
representatives of NCSG, for the third is also good as our argument for
3 members on the SSC centered on the existence of NCSG separate from the
constituencies.

Not bad for a 90 minute call.

Thanks to the deciders.

avri


On 29-Mar-17 14:38, matthew shears wrote:
> Hi all
>
> As discussed in earlier emails below, members of the NCSG PC (Ayden,
> Juan Manuel, Marilia, Martin, Stefania, Stephanie and I) met this
> evening for 1.5 hours to review, discuss and hopefully agree our slate
> of three members for the SSC.  You will recall that we have 3
> positions and 5 candidates - Renata, Kris, Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.  As
> noted below, Ed, Rafik and Poncelet recused themselves from the
> process given their candidacies. Tapani has also recused himself.
>
> We were partially successful.  For a variety of reasons, not least of
> which were their strong candidacies, we agreed that Renata and
> Poncelet should hold two of the three places in the Committee.  We
> congratulate them on their selection.
>
> Kris has significant experience.  But we agreed his profile, while
> impressive, was not as suited for the role as the other candidates. 
> This said, we appreciated Kris putting his name forward and look
> forward to meeting with him in Johannesburg and exploring
> opportunities for further engagement in NCSG.
>
> For connectivity and time reasons we did not get to a discussion about
> the third slot - between Ed and Rafik.  This discussion will be
> resumed next week and it is the commitment of the PC to have a
> decision on the third place by Friday the 7th of April.
>
> This means that for the first SSC meeting tomorrow there will be two
> of the three members present.   I have let ICANN staff know.
>
> Thanks for your understanding and support.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 28/03/2017 13:39, matthew shears wrote:
>> + 1 Avri
>>
>> Also, thanks Ayden for putting the google doc together (see below). 
>> All - if there are other criteria that should be considered please
>> add them today.
>>
>> I think Avri is right - given the diversity of views among the PC
>> members who will be deciding, a call/discussion using the criteria
>> for guidance is probably the best (only?) way forward.
>>
>> I will circulate a doodle for the "deciders" and try and set up a time.
>>
>> Thanks for your patience and understanding as we move this forward.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 28/03/2017 11:31, avri doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Not bad.  I would give it a try.
>>>
>>> If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
>>> these issues could help draw out the choices.
>>>
>>> To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
>>> call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and
>>> see if
>>> you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
>>> enough cumulatively about the candidates.
>>>
>>> Just a thought:  I would suggest that people stop discussing the
>>> process
>>> until after this decision is made.
>>>
>>> Good luck
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>> Hi, all-
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess
>>>> the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the
>>>> Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to
>>>> revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it
>>>> is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the
>>>> fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to
>>>> assess the candidates.
>>>>
>>>> Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below,
>>>> on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS
>>>> Review ? and we need people on that call.
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>> <raquino at GMAIL.COM>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty
>>>>> important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably
>>>>> somewhat contentious series of tasks.  One might think of such
>>>>> personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty,
>>>>> integrity, impartiality.   Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them
>>>>> to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start
>>>>> discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a
>>>>> test of all those qualities....
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:
>>>>>>> personalities rather than abilities
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
>>>>>> that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
>>>>>> impasse, give it a try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
>>>>>>> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
>>>>>>> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will
>>>>>>> send to
>>>>>>> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it.
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
>>>>>>> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects,
>>>>>>> mirroring,
>>>>>>> personalities rather than abilities, information provided
>>>>>>> informally,
>>>>>>> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of
>>>>>>> us too
>>>>>>> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
>>>>>>> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
>>>>>>> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations
>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>> taking this approach?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>>>>>>>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective
>>>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where we are at the moment:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the
>>>>>>>> SSC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and
>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate
>>>>>>>> of three
>>>>>>>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3
>>>>>>>> because they
>>>>>>>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>>>>>>>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the
>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs
>>>>>>>> 30th.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how
>>>>>>>> to move
>>>>>>>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had
>>>>>>>>> had long
>>>>>>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay
>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that
>>>>>>>>> non-public
>>>>>>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without
>>>>>>>>> publicity, but
>>>>>>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in
>>>>>>>>> advance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>>>>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should
>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates
>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them
>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> arguments based
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even
>>>>>>>>>>> listening in?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>>>>>>>>> transcribed?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving
>>>>>>>>>>> each,
>>>>>>>>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> short for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that already.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>>>>>>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with
>>>>>>>>>>> the third
>>>>>>>>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think
>>>>>>>>>>> it'd make
>>>>>>>>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a
>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has
>>>>>>>>>>> more work
>>>>>>>>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>>>>>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or
>>>>>>>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
>>>>>>>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to
>>>>>>>> fight it
>>>>>>>> out at Council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> running to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>>>>>>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>>>>>>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the
>>>>>>>>>>>> voting?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to
>>>>>>>>>>>> add that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> represented.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> newcomer though,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in
>>>>>>>>>>>> this type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>>>>>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>>>>>>>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one
>>>>>>>> slot set
>>>>>>>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>>>>>>>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are
>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three
>>>>>>>> representatives
>>>>>>>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate
>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>>>>>>>> assessing the candidates?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
>>>>>>>> "alternates" approach works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection
>>>>>>>>>>>> Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - URGENT
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> task,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done
>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved
>>>>>>>>>>>> - make
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications
>>>>>>>>>>>> related to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Empowered
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> recommendations for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate
>>>>>>>>>>>> selections to all
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>>>>>>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers
>>>>>>>> Constituency;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>>>>>>>>>> Directory
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> its 20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has
>>>>>>>>>>>> tasked the SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GNSO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> member(s) to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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 AVG.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 AVG.
>>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>



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



From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Mar 30 18:56:15 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:56:15 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] IGO-INGO comment due in three days
In-Reply-To: <Yg_3XN7DaUPNIdOwT9Bj_9DVo3MlZ1-Aw17jiV_6LGa27Zi4BjHP0BJMV-Ei2Ic4NXSgMbtGsSWQRwRiM0srRd_KH0A1eU26T8P2e2vbDqU=@ferdeline.com>
References: <Yg_3XN7DaUPNIdOwT9Bj_9DVo3MlZ1-Aw17jiV_6LGa27Zi4BjHP0BJMV-Ei2Ic4NXSgMbtGsSWQRwRiM0srRd_KH0A1eU26T8P2e2vbDqU=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <Fd-xTcO3vlIwpIm75PeFftIpe81nPLfQXA3IPrnB0gIlewEKcZvrxJuF1cUHJLzlfQDzWBMmyXfcXbLIaI3ygVBKqpg-KT91YTVSj6txPzs=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

Just following up as comments are due today. Is anyone working on this? And what do we think about recommendation #5, that IGOs and INGOs have access to the UDRP and URS "at no or nominal cost"?

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] IGO-INGO comment due in three days
Local Time: 27 March 2017 3:51 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 14:51
From: icann at ferdeline.com
To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Hi,

Just a reminder that comments on the Initial Report from the PDP WG that is evaluating IGO and INGO's access to curative rights protection mechanisms are due in three days, on 30 March. Do we have a response in progress?

Best wishes,

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170330/300862ff/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Thu Mar 30 19:42:04 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:42:04 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] IGO-INGO comment due in three days
In-Reply-To: <Fd-xTcO3vlIwpIm75PeFftIpe81nPLfQXA3IPrnB0gIlewEKcZvrxJuF1cUHJLzlfQDzWBMmyXfcXbLIaI3ygVBKqpg-KT91YTVSj6txPzs=@ferdeline.com>
References: <Yg_3XN7DaUPNIdOwT9Bj_9DVo3MlZ1-Aw17jiV_6LGa27Zi4BjHP0BJMV-Ei2Ic4NXSgMbtGsSWQRwRiM0srRd_KH0A1eU26T8P2e2vbDqU=@ferdeline.com>
 <Fd-xTcO3vlIwpIm75PeFftIpe81nPLfQXA3IPrnB0gIlewEKcZvrxJuF1cUHJLzlfQDzWBMmyXfcXbLIaI3ygVBKqpg-KT91YTVSj6txPzs=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAJjnsDHvE-ZWFotT-u6Gp=+Pe5Rf3FU9JLnKPhCwNOCcJPTPGQ@mail.gmail.com>

I don't have a draft done for this, but we could try to address this in the
informal non comercial RPM group to have a quick inside before it close.

Cheers,
Martin

On 30 Mar 2017 17:56, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just following up as comments are due today. Is anyone working on this?
> And what do we think about recommendation #5, that IGOs and INGOs have
> access to the UDRP and URS "at no or nominal cost"?
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] IGO-INGO comment due in three days
> Local Time: 27 March 2017 3:51 PM
> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 14:51
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi,
>
> Just a reminder that comments on the Initial Report from the PDP WG that
> is evaluating IGO and INGO's access to curative rights protection
> mechanisms are due in three days, on 30 March. Do we have a response in
> progress?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170330/bb7ce3ee/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Mar 30 20:44:53 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:44:53 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] IGO-INGO comment due in three days
In-Reply-To: <CAJjnsDHvE-ZWFotT-u6Gp=+Pe5Rf3FU9JLnKPhCwNOCcJPTPGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Yg_3XN7DaUPNIdOwT9Bj_9DVo3MlZ1-Aw17jiV_6LGa27Zi4BjHP0BJMV-Ei2Ic4NXSgMbtGsSWQRwRiM0srRd_KH0A1eU26T8P2e2vbDqU=@ferdeline.com>
 <Fd-xTcO3vlIwpIm75PeFftIpe81nPLfQXA3IPrnB0gIlewEKcZvrxJuF1cUHJLzlfQDzWBMmyXfcXbLIaI3ygVBKqpg-KT91YTVSj6txPzs=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAJjnsDHvE-ZWFotT-u6Gp=+Pe5Rf3FU9JLnKPhCwNOCcJPTPGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BejzfAuL3XnNIiPBCUYfMvoqn8CqFVJxm3cVxTD89LmAfa17B_AjjyyU9XyhuxPM34I2W98-CRQi_i2JZ-1b0mx6z2WqQpFzwdjbBVTb_NE=@ferdeline.com>

That sounds like a good start, Mart?n. I think we should try to submit something, even if we do have to lodge the response a few days past the deadline [which is in four hours time].

Best wishes,
Ayden

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:42 pm, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:
I don't have a draft done for this, but we could try to address this in the informal non comercial RPM group to have a quick inside before it close.

Cheers,
Martin

On 30 Mar 2017 17:56, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

Hi,

Just following up as comments are due today. Is anyone working on this? And what do we think about recommendation #5, that IGOs and INGOs have access to the UDRP and URS "at no or nominal cost"?

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] IGO-INGO comment due in three days
Local Time: 27 March 2017 3:51 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 14:51
From: icann at ferdeline.com
To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Hi,

Just a reminder that comments on the Initial Report from the PDP WG that is evaluating IGO and INGO's access to curative rights protection mechanisms are due in three days, on 30 March. Do we have a response in progress?

Best wishes,

Ayden

______________________________ _________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170330/a58a6157/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Thu Mar 30 20:50:03 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:50:03 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
In-Reply-To: <cb8afb81-4beb-7e2b-b024-8787105d332d@cdt.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3PR05MB521CAD700BA538AE2D58568F7300@DB3PR05MB521.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20170327060856.x7v3rhnswbrgqgug@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <f61caed1-f124-6750-b606-41ac36b59ddb@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20170327195209.pxnqyaoyyf6yifwf@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <812921bd-5402-e6c5-92c5-02b5902f8df3@cdt.org>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
 <094a074a-70a7-2a92-7dfe-48a45b02d73c@apc.org>
 <8c673db4-2696-4e43-8569-2d1eb31ca445@cdt.org>
 <cb8afb81-4beb-7e2b-b024-8787105d332d@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40v+GnOu4GieF8tkfdgrwWs+E4_S5t8O6t2F_E1DgT1tpA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Matthew / Colleagues,

Thanks for the update, since I have passed the recuse stage now, I wish to
thank all that supported my nomination and that of Renata, knowing that we
shall represent NCSG with all your full support.

Today myself and Renata attended the first GNSO SSC meeting, of course it
was well noted we still have a vacancy to fill from NCSG. I felt it
necessary to mention some key highlights from the meeting to you all.

Key Pointers from today GNSO SSC Meeting.

1. Susan Kawaguchi (BC) co-initiated this project with Ed Morris, and also
a candidate for RDS review team,  she will step out during the selection
process time from the GNSO SSC and another member from BC will take her
place as she is a candidate.

2. Members of the GNSO SSC  are expected to consult with their own
communities. As our communities  are more  knowledgeable about the
candidates from our own community, .So in short myself and Renata will
definitely come back to community during selection process for advice as
needed during selection process.

I felt I mention this two key pointers as we move ahead, as the deadlines
for this is very short.

Thank you all once again.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

Poncelet

On 29 March 2017 at 18:38, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> As discussed in earlier emails below, members of the NCSG PC (Ayden, Juan
> Manuel, Marilia, Martin, Stefania, Stephanie and I) met this evening for
> 1.5 hours to review, discuss and hopefully agree our slate of three members
> for the SSC.  You will recall that we have 3 positions and 5 candidates -
> Renata, Kris, Poncelet, Ed and Rafik.  As noted below, Ed, Rafik and
> Poncelet recused themselves from the process given their candidacies.
> Tapani has also recused himself.
>
> We were partially successful.  For a variety of reasons, not least of
> which were their strong candidacies, we agreed that Renata and Poncelet
> should hold two of the three places in the Committee.  We congratulate them
> on their selection.
>
> Kris has significant experience.  But we agreed his profile, while
> impressive, was not as suited for the role as the other candidates.  This
> said, we appreciated Kris putting his name forward and look forward to
> meeting with him in Johannesburg and exploring opportunities for further
> engagement in NCSG.
>
> For connectivity and time reasons we did not get to a discussion about the
> third slot - between Ed and Rafik.  This discussion will be resumed next
> week and it is the commitment of the PC to have a decision on the third
> place by Friday the 7th of April.
>
> This means that for the first SSC meeting tomorrow there will be two of
> the three members present.   I have let ICANN staff know.
>
> Thanks for your understanding and support.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 28/03/2017 13:39, matthew shears wrote:
>
>> + 1 Avri
>>
>> Also, thanks Ayden for putting the google doc together (see below).  All
>> - if there are other criteria that should be considered please add them
>> today.
>>
>> I think Avri is right - given the diversity of views among the PC members
>> who will be deciding, a call/discussion using the criteria for guidance is
>> probably the best (only?) way forward.
>>
>> I will circulate a doodle for the "deciders" and try and set up a time.
>>
>> Thanks for your patience and understanding as we move this forward.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 28/03/2017 11:31, avri doria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Not bad.  I would give it a try.
>>>
>>> If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
>>> these issues could help draw out the choices.
>>>
>>> To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
>>> call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and see if
>>> you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
>>> enough cumulatively about the candidates.
>>>
>>> Just a thought:  I would suggest that people stop discussing the process
>>> until after this decision is made.
>>>
>>> Good luck
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, all-
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess
>>>> the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the
>>>> Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to
>>>> revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it
>>>> is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsX
>>>> UqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the
>>>> fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to
>>>> assess the candidates.
>>>>
>>>> Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below,
>>>> on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS
>>>> Review ? and we need people on that call.
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>> <raquino at GMAIL.COM>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty
>>>>> important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably
>>>>> somewhat contentious series of tasks.  One might think of such
>>>>> personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty,
>>>>> integrity, impartiality.   Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them
>>>>> to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start
>>>>> discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a
>>>>> test of all those qualities....
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> personalities rather than abilities
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
>>>>>> that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
>>>>>> impasse, give it a try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
>>>>>>> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
>>>>>>> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
>>>>>>> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
>>>>>>> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
>>>>>>> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects,
>>>>>>> mirroring,
>>>>>>> personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
>>>>>>> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us
>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
>>>>>>> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
>>>>>>> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations
>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>> taking this approach?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>>>>>>>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective
>>>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where we are at the moment:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
>>>>>>>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of
>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>>>>>>>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
>>>>>>>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs
>>>>>>>> 30th.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to
>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had
>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
>>>>>>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
>>>>>>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
>>>>>>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in
>>>>>>>>> advance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>>>>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> arguments based
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>>>>>>>>> transcribed?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
>>>>>>>>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving
>>>>>>>>>>> each,
>>>>>>>>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> short for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that already.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>>>>>>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the
>>>>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a
>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more
>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>>>>>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will
>>>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
>>>>>>>> out at Council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>>>>>>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>>>>>>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> represented.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer
>>>>>>>>>>>> though,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>>>>>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
>>>>>>>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>>>>>>>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
>>>>>>>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>>>>>>>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
>>>>>>>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three
>>>>>>>> representatives
>>>>>>>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>>>>>>>> assessing the candidates?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "alternates" approach works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - URGENT
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and explain
>>>>>>>>>>>> why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved -
>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at ica
>>>>>>>> nn.org> -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-
>>>>>>>> committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.
>>>>>>>> icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommi
>>>>>>>> ttee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV
>>>>>>>> zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyX
>>>>>>>> rxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFB
>>>>>>>> e1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.
>>>>>>>>> icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommi
>>>>>>>>> ttee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSV
>>>>>>>>> zgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyX
>>>>>>>>> rxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFB
>>>>>>>>> e1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Empowered
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> recommendations for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>>>>>>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>>>>>>>>>> Directory
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> its 20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> GNSO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> member(s) to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gn
>>>>>>>> so-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>>>>>>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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 AVG.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 AVG.
>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> ------------
> 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
>



-- 
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/20170330/7c08211e/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Mar 30 21:42:42 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:42:42 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40v+GnOu4GieF8tkfdgrwWs+E4_S5t8O6t2F_E1DgT1tpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
 <094a074a-70a7-2a92-7dfe-48a45b02d73c@apc.org>
 <8c673db4-2696-4e43-8569-2d1eb31ca445@cdt.org>
 <cb8afb81-4beb-7e2b-b024-8787105d332d@cdt.org>
 <CAEux40v+GnOu4GieF8tkfdgrwWs+E4_S5t8O6t2F_E1DgT1tpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <98oqToWH0h95pVoA_6dUJBD1iJwya8pRyJuI2cNvokzsWtvKZtK-VWcRHe8L0zIjuTjrarCHX0Jv9PLV1v6pS3ZVSZMnAQib_7mS4_z8FNg=@ferdeline.com>

Thank you for keeping us updated, Poncelet. If there are opportunities for collaboration with the Policy Committee or the NCSG more broadly, please do reach out to us.

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
Local Time: 30 March 2017 6:50 PM
UTC Time: 30 March 2017 17:50
From: pileleji at ymca.gm
To: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>

Dear Matthew / Colleagues,
Thanks for the update, since I have passed the recuse stage now, I wish to thank all that supported my nomination and that of Renata, knowing that we shall represent NCSG with all your full support.

Today myself and Renata attended the first GNSO SSC meeting, of course it was well noted we still have a vacancy to fill from NCSG. I felt it necessary to mention some key highlights from the meeting to you all.

Key Pointers from today GNSO SSC Meeting.

1. Susan Kawaguchi (BC) co-initiated this project with Ed Morris, and also a candidate for RDS review team, she will step out during the selection process time from the GNSO SSC and another member from BC will take her place as she is a candidate.

2. Members of the GNSO SSC are expected to consult with their own communities. As our communities are more knowledgeable about the candidates from our own community, .So in short myself and Renata will definitely come back to community during selection process for advice as needed during selection process.

I felt I mention this two key pointers as we move ahead, as the deadlines for this is very short.

Thank you all once again.

Kind Regards
Poncelet

Poncelet

On 29 March 2017 at 18:38, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
Hi all

As discussed in earlier emails below, members of the NCSG PC (Ayden, Juan Manuel, Marilia, Martin, Stefania, Stephanie and I) met this evening for 1.5 hours to review, discuss and hopefully agree our slate of three members for the SSC. You will recall that we have 3 positions and 5 candidates - Renata, Kris, Poncelet, Ed and Rafik. As noted below, Ed, Rafik and Poncelet recused themselves from the process given their candidacies. Tapani has also recused himself.

We were partially successful. For a variety of reasons, not least of which were their strong candidacies, we agreed that Renata and Poncelet should hold two of the three places in the Committee. We congratulate them on their selection.

Kris has significant experience. But we agreed his profile, while impressive, was not as suited for the role as the other candidates. This said, we appreciated Kris putting his name forward and look forward to meeting with him in Johannesburg and exploring opportunities for further engagement in NCSG.

For connectivity and time reasons we did not get to a discussion about the third slot - between Ed and Rafik. This discussion will be resumed next week and it is the commitment of the PC to have a decision on the third place by Friday the 7th of April.

This means that for the first SSC meeting tomorrow there will be two of the three members present. I have let ICANN staff know.

Thanks for your understanding and support.

Matthew

On 28/03/2017 13:39, matthew shears wrote:

+ 1 Avri

Also, thanks Ayden for putting the google doc together (see below). All - if there are other criteria that should be considered please add them today.

I think Avri is right - given the diversity of views among the PC members who will be deciding, a call/discussion using the criteria for guidance is probably the best (only?) way forward.

I will circulate a doodle for the "deciders" and try and set up a time.

Thanks for your patience and understanding as we move this forward.

Matthew

On 28/03/2017 11:31, avri doria wrote:

Hi,

Not bad. I would give it a try.

If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
these issues could help draw out the choices.

To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and see if
you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
enough cumulatively about the candidates.

Just a thought: I would suggest that people stop discussing the process
until after this decision is made.

Good luck

avri

On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:

Hi, all-

I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess
the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the
Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to
revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it
is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing

We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the
fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to
assess the candidates.

Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below,
on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS
Review ? and we need people on that call.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
<raquino at GMAIL.COM>

I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty
important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably
somewhat contentious series of tasks. One might think of such
personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty,
integrity, impartiality. Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them
to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start
discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a
test of all those qualities....

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:

personalities rather than abilities

isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?

My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
impasse, give it a try.

avri

On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:

The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will send to
the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it. This
way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects, mirroring,
personalities rather than abilities, information provided informally,
etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of us too
long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations regarding
taking this approach?

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
From: mshears at cdt.org
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Hi all

I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective thinking.

Where we are at the moment:

We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the SSC.

There have been various efforts to move this discussion and process
along to little avail and to some criticism.

There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate of three
for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3 because they
are candidates and 1 for process concerns.

We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
experience and representativeness including of constituencies

Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the names
today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.

The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs 30th.

I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how to move
this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.

Thanks in advance.

Matthew

On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Dear all,

As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had had long
email discussion about it without including me, I will stay out of
this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.

I will only say for the record that while I accept that non-public
discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case to be
publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom to be
able to debate and make this kind of decisions without publicity, but
if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in advance.

In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
this and I trust he gets it done in time.

Tapani

On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin

(stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should take

place

without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates who

are not

on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them if we

were

going to have an open discussion on the PC list.

I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all

arguments based

on what makes the best slate of candidates.

SP

On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Stefania and Stephanie,

I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even listening in?

If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
transcribed?

That would not ... be exactly transparent.

Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the discussion

about

the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to make
their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving each,
say, 5 minutes to speak might work.

A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too

short for

that already.

As for the qualifications, two points:

First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with the third
we can do whatever we like.

Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think it'd make
sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a person
over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has more work
on her or his plate already.

Tapani

On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:

Thanks, Steph.
I think the contestants should be removed from the conversation.

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di

Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>

Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

So we have a day left to get this sorted.

1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or not?

2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying

characteristics we are looking for might be?

3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG, that

actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to fight it
out at Council.

SP

On 2017-03-25 20:00, mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
Hi

The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.

So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness

including of constituencies as criteria.

My preference would be for the PC members who are not running to

discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each suggest
our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
suggestions are welcome.

Matthew

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Stephanie Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC

What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the voting?

cheers Stephanie

On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

Hi Ayden,

I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to add that

for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies

represented.

I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a newcomer though,

I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in this type of

work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.

Tapani

On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline

(icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:

My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to

those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I would
hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one slot set
aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are sufficiently
qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three representatives
will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate this is
an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
assessing the candidates?

- Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears

<mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

Hi

Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline

yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I believe
that we should add her candidacy to the mix.

Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.

Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
"alternates" approach works.

I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of criteria for

the selection process. Thoughts welcome.

Matthew

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200

From: Tapani Tarvainen

<ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>

Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection Committee

- URGENT

Dear all,

See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.

If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the task,

please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59 UTC.

Please read the council decision linked to below and explain why you

think you would be qualified for the task.

Note that there's no travel support, this is all done remotely, and

it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved - make

sure you can commit yourself to the time required.

--

Tapani Tarvainen

----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine

<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> -----

Dear All,

On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO

Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see

[https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf%5Bgnso.icann.org%5D)
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.

The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1), where

applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the

selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as

ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered

Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant

applicants/candidates,

3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment

recommendations for

review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all

interested parties.

The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:

The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as follows:

- One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the

Contracted Party House;

- One member appointed respectively from each of the Business

Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency;

- Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder

Group; and,

- One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee

appointees to the GNSO Council.

The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review and

selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory

Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by

its 20

April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has tasked the SSC

to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the

GNSO

Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council

consideration by its June 2017 meeting.

Your respective groups are requested to communicate their

member(s) to

the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat

(gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g

<mailto: [g
<mailto: [g
nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
by 27 March at the

latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for Thursday 30

March at 16.00 UTC.

Best regards,

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

_______________________________________________
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 AVG.
http://www.avg.com

--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
[+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987)

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________
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 AVG.
http://www.avg.com

--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
[+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987)

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

--

Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org
[www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm)
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170330/53ff8e27/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Mar 31 16:05:56 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:05:56 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
In-Reply-To: <52d44455-b1d1-3c6e-4474-78fe939f1e25@acm.org>
References: <CAMokdMz-3FzFpoY=8gfftA2wGy3vW2Q3u+97oYRD2Z83S8TK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <6fv4HDLZdKOMR_jDAXMsb5xasiFB945xRLWqCgmaoJujfPNjUwwbsdNEHSCvS5B7_BLzv_zIWC79IbgKn1BDvWXbo17TLOnBjZiA8x-AotE=@ferdeline.com>
 <5aeeabf7-ae29-0784-ae6e-42ecb805c5d4@apc.org>
 <960e59ce-6f12-f8ca-7fe2-e54da1f4023c@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <P21M9XfmWPREzLuFyMS7-CwmsRqbHOdZLbp8jD4kr1BmIeFhrbcAlXcoECLGPPHMnYc3lPFYUVD1VDXgBHnRp2MAGPojJ8muPIdelbt9Y7Y=@ferdeline.com>
 <094a074a-70a7-2a92-7dfe-48a45b02d73c@apc.org>
 <8c673db4-2696-4e43-8569-2d1eb31ca445@cdt.org>
 <cb8afb81-4beb-7e2b-b024-8787105d332d@cdt.org>
 <52d44455-b1d1-3c6e-4474-78fe939f1e25@acm.org>
Message-ID: <T_YU4gBPJpbzWGFh43gArSZovAzwHlY6galGNw8kYS8AcWpe-foJKTm3wUJ0Wcx1vDt9ekET06GRsyNOKyW3xPWrlbQGVk-Zi7iMvFzpnRA=@ferdeline.com>

Hi, all-

In preparation for our call next Friday to finalise the selection of our third representative on the SSC, could I please ask the two remaining candidates [Ed and Rafik] to send through a copy of their CV. This can be done off-list if you prefer, and I will forward to the assessors. This will provide us with a comparative profile of the applicants? skills and qualifications and I will suggest on the call that the CVs be compared against the [requirements of the role](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing), as already shared.

Thanks,

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO SSC selection
Local Time: 30 March 2017 5:36 AM
UTC Time: 30 March 2017 04:36
From: avri at acm.org
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

Hi,

Thanks for this update.

I think that in picking one from NCUC and one from NPOC, one from LAC
and one from Africa, one a man and one a woman, you have made an
excellent start of it. Not only that, both are quite qualified.

And choosing between 2 elected council members, both therefore
representatives of NCSG, for the third is also good as our argument for
3 members on the SSC centered on the existence of NCSG separate from the
constituencies.

Not bad for a 90 minute call.

Thanks to the deciders.

avri

On 29-Mar-17 14:38, matthew shears wrote:
> Hi all
>
> As discussed in earlier emails below, members of the NCSG PC (Ayden,
> Juan Manuel, Marilia, Martin, Stefania, Stephanie and I) met this
> evening for 1.5 hours to review, discuss and hopefully agree our slate
> of three members for the SSC. You will recall that we have 3
> positions and 5 candidates - Renata, Kris, Poncelet, Ed and Rafik. As
> noted below, Ed, Rafik and Poncelet recused themselves from the
> process given their candidacies. Tapani has also recused himself.
>
> We were partially successful. For a variety of reasons, not least of
> which were their strong candidacies, we agreed that Renata and
> Poncelet should hold two of the three places in the Committee. We
> congratulate them on their selection.
>
> Kris has significant experience. But we agreed his profile, while
> impressive, was not as suited for the role as the other candidates.
> This said, we appreciated Kris putting his name forward and look
> forward to meeting with him in Johannesburg and exploring
> opportunities for further engagement in NCSG.
>
> For connectivity and time reasons we did not get to a discussion about
> the third slot - between Ed and Rafik. This discussion will be
> resumed next week and it is the commitment of the PC to have a
> decision on the third place by Friday the 7th of April.
>
> This means that for the first SSC meeting tomorrow there will be two
> of the three members present. I have let ICANN staff know.
>
> Thanks for your understanding and support.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 28/03/2017 13:39, matthew shears wrote:
>> + 1 Avri
>>
>> Also, thanks Ayden for putting the google doc together (see below).
>> All - if there are other criteria that should be considered please
>> add them today.
>>
>> I think Avri is right - given the diversity of views among the PC
>> members who will be deciding, a call/discussion using the criteria
>> for guidance is probably the best (only?) way forward.
>>
>> I will circulate a doodle for the "deciders" and try and set up a time.
>>
>> Thanks for your patience and understanding as we move this forward.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> On 28/03/2017 11:31, avri doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Not bad. I would give it a try.
>>>
>>> If nothing else, just the fact of the deciders talking though all of
>>> these issues could help draw out the choices.
>>>
>>> To get this done, you might want to get the deciders on a conference
>>> call (not recorded as this is discussion of personal details) and
>>> see if
>>> you can get the deciding done. Even without statement you probably know
>>> enough cumulatively about the candidates.
>>>
>>> Just a thought: I would suggest that people stop discussing the
>>> process
>>> until after this decision is made.
>>>
>>> Good luck
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27-Mar-17 18:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>> Hi, all-
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted up a short rubric which we may consider using to assess
>>>> the candidates. This is still a work in progress, and I have set the
>>>> Google Doc to allow anyone to edit it, to add new criteria or to
>>>> revise what I have included. Nothing is set in stone at this time; it
>>>> is just a first draft, so please do feel free to edit it.
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ha32l6V-7EQ_IvMbdsXUqNC5Qx4hV0magRi-UlkdX0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We may decide this is not a useful tool at all, particularly given the
>>>> fact that we do not have candidate statements to use in order to
>>>> assess the candidates.
>>>>
>>>> Alas, we need to make a decision soon. As Stephanie mentioned below,
>>>> on the agenda for the first SSC meeting this Thursday is the RDS
>>>> Review ? and we need people on that call.
>>>>
>>>> - Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 11:07 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 22:07
>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, seeburnk at gmail.com, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>> <raquino at GMAIL.COM>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would tend to agree that certain aspects of personality are pretty
>>>>> important in group work, and this will be a difficult and probably
>>>>> somewhat contentious series of tasks. One might think of such
>>>>> personality traits as patience, diplomacy, trustworthiness, honesty,
>>>>> integrity, impartiality. Perhaps Ayden might consider adding them
>>>>> to his ranking document. The group is meeting on Thursday to start
>>>>> discussing the recruits for the WHOIS review team, that ought to be a
>>>>> test of all those qualities....
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-03-27 17:57, avri doria wrote:
>>>>>>> personalities rather than abilities
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> isn't personality often a critical attribute of an emissary?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My hesitation is that such 'objective' ratings are often little more
>>>>>> that subjectivity in disguise. But if it gets the PC past it current
>>>>>> impasse, give it a try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27-Mar-17 17:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The successful candidates should be the people who show the best
>>>>>>> ability against the person specification for the role. I am making
>>>>>>> such a grading rubric in Google Docs at the moment, and will
>>>>>>> send to
>>>>>>> the list shortly for feedback and to allow others to refine it.
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> way we can objectively grade the candidates without decisions being
>>>>>>> made on the basis of snap judgements, halo or horn effects,
>>>>>>> mirroring,
>>>>>>> personalities rather than abilities, information provided
>>>>>>> informally,
>>>>>>> etc. There are only five candidates so it shouldn't take any of
>>>>>>> us too
>>>>>>> long to grade them once the rubric is ready, which will be tonight.
>>>>>>> And the three candidates with the highest scores should be our
>>>>>>> representatives on the SSC. Does anyone have any hesitations
>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>> taking this approach?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 27 March 2017 10:31 PM
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 27 March 2017 21:31
>>>>>>>> From: mshears at cdt.org
>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe we need a bit of a reset and to pool our collective
>>>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where we are at the moment:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have to pick three individuals from five candidates for the
>>>>>>>> SSC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There have been various efforts to move this discussion and
>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> along to little avail and to some criticism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no consensus yet among the PC members as to the slate
>>>>>>>> of three
>>>>>>>> for the SSC. 4 PC members have now recused themselves - 3
>>>>>>>> because they
>>>>>>>> are candidates and 1 for process concerns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We had suggested criteria for selecting candidates: diversity,
>>>>>>>> experience and representativeness including of constituencies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite the above we are not in a position to communicate the
>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>> today and I have informed ICANN staff to that effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first meeting of the SSC is supposed to happen on the Thurs
>>>>>>>> 30th.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am looking to the PC for suggestions as to a process for how
>>>>>>>> to move
>>>>>>>> this forward in a constructive and transparent manner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27/03/2017 20:52, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As it turns out the councillors involved in the decision had
>>>>>>>>> had long
>>>>>>>>> email discussion about it without including me, I will stay
>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>> this decision and leave it to them to decide it as they see fit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will only say for the record that while I accept that
>>>>>>>>> non-public
>>>>>>>>> discussions are sometimes necessary, I'd want them in any case
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> publicly known about. Perhaps we need a setup like the NomCom
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> able to debate and make this kind of decisions without
>>>>>>>>> publicity, but
>>>>>>>>> if so I'd want that and related procedures to be agreed on in
>>>>>>>>> advance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In any case I'm happy Matthew has taken the responsibility of
>>>>>>>>> this and I trust he gets it done in time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 27 10:19, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just meant that the discussion about the candidates should
>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> without the candidates there. Further, we have two candidates
>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on the policy list, so we would in fairness have to add them
>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> going to have an open discussion on the PC list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we should leave this an NCSG discussion and make all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> arguments based
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on what makes the best slate of candidates.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-27 02:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stefania and Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by removing the contestants from the
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation. Do you want to exclude them from even
>>>>>>>>>>> listening in?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we have a call around this, should it not be recorded and
>>>>>>>>>>> transcribed?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would not ... be exactly transparent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I agree they should not participate in the
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the selection in general, but giving each an equal chance to
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> their case would make sense. If we do arrange a call, giving
>>>>>>>>>>> each,
>>>>>>>>>>> say, 5 minutes to speak might work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A candidate statement would be nice, but time is perhaps too
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> short for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that already.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for the qualifications, two points:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First, ncuc/npoc/ncsg division: I don't see we can do more than
>>>>>>>>>>> ensure there is at least one from each constituency, with
>>>>>>>>>>> the third
>>>>>>>>>>> we can do whatever we like.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Second, besides qualifications already mentioned I think
>>>>>>>>>>> it'd make
>>>>>>>>>>> sense to consider the workload. It might be better to pick a
>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>> over another who'd be otherwise more qualified but who has
>>>>>>>>>>> more work
>>>>>>>>>>> on her or his plate already.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 26 19:03, Milan, Stefania (Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Steph.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the contestants should be removed from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Inviato: domenica 26 marzo 2017 19.58.50
>>>>>>>>>>>> A: mshears at cdt.org; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have a day left to get this sorted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Should the contestants be removed from the discussion or
>>>>>>>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do we have further commentary on what the qualifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> characteristics we are looking for might be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. While we have argued for a seat for NPOC, NCUC and NCSG,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> actually might be hard to achieve. I dont think anyone will argue
>>>>>>>> about how we sort this, as long as we arent going to try to
>>>>>>>> fight it
>>>>>>>> out at Council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 20:00,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for names is end of day 27 march.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So far we have diversity, experience and representativeness
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> including of constituencies as criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My preference would be for the PC members who are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> running to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> discuss the candidates based on these criteria and try and reach
>>>>>>>> agreement. If that is not possible or appropriate we can each
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>> our preferred trio and see if we have any rough consensus. Other
>>>>>>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perrin<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 March 2017 15:44
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Interest in GNSO SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the deadline again, and how are we arranging the
>>>>>>>>>>>> voting?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheers Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-03-25 03:24, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that diversity is indeed important. I would like to
>>>>>>>>>>>> add that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for that reason we should also have both of our constituencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> represented.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure if this would be a good place for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> newcomer though,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like appointees to have at least some experience in
>>>>>>>>>>>> this type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> work, even if perhaps not so much in ICANN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My personal preference would be to adopt principles similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> those of the SSC, which entails trying to achieve a balance of
>>>>>>>> representativeness, diversity, and sufficient experience. So I
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> hope our three representatives have a mixture of experience levels
>>>>>>>> within the ICANN community (I would welcome there being one
>>>>>>>> slot set
>>>>>>>> aside for a newcomer), diversity (I would not support all three
>>>>>>>> candidates being the same gender, if all candidates are
>>>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>>>> qualified), and representativeness (ideally the three
>>>>>>>> representatives
>>>>>>>> will be from different geographic regions though I appreciate
>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>> an imperfect metric). Or is this too simplistic a rubric for
>>>>>>>> assessing the candidates?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:23 pm, matthew shears
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that Renata expressed an interest before the deadline
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yesterday and that she has been having Internet challenges I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> that we should add her candidacy to the mix.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please respond to the e-mail on process I sent earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously now with 5 candidates it is perhaps less clear that the
>>>>>>>> "alternates" approach works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate therefore that we agree a set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the selection process. Thoughts welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:40:59 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO><mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Call for volunteers - GNSO Standing Selection
>>>>>>>>>>>> Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - URGENT
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> See below. We need to appoint three (3) members to the SSC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are interested and would like to volunteer for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> task,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> please let us know no later than Thursday, 23 March, 23:59
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please read the council decision linked to below and
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> think you would be qualified for the task.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there's no travel support, this is all done
>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it looks like there will be a fair amount of work involved
>>>>>>>>>>>> - make
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you can commit yourself to the time required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nathalie Peregrine
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 March, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Standing Selection Committee (SSC) ? see
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_draft-2Dstanding-2Dselection-2Dcommittee-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=KmYsfcYHwH-JYXWIJ58L-ZnwETFBe1FrVJ8qghEsRV8&s=GmTt0n-0Bp3olHk5awt9BtmGRrEZnY7TI9fF4Fnvcy4&e=>.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SSC is tasked, as requested by the GNSO Council, to 1),
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications
>>>>>>>>>>>> related to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures
>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Empowered
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> applicants/candidates,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> recommendations for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> review and approval by Council and 4) communicate
>>>>>>>>>>>> selections to all
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested parties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The membership structure of the SSC is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SSC shall consist of a total of 9 members appointed as
>>>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed by each Stakeholder Group of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Contracted Party House;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - One member appointed respectively from each of the Business
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the
>>>>>>>> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers
>>>>>>>> Constituency;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Three members appointed by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Group; and,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - One member from one of the three Nominating-Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> appointees to the GNSO Council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council has tasked the SSC to carry out the review
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration
>>>>>>>>>>>> Directory
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> its 20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> April 2017 meeting. Furthermore, the GNSO Council has
>>>>>>>>>>>> tasked the SSC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to develop the criteria and the process for the selection
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GNSO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your respective groups are requested to communicate their
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> member(s) to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the SSC to the GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>)<mailto: [g
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>>>> <mailto: [g
>>>>>>>> nso-secs at icann.org](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org))><mailto:[gnso-secs at icann.org]%28mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org%29%29>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by 27 March at the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> latest. A first meeting of the SSC will be scheduled for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> March at 16.00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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 AVG.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 AVG.
>>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>

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

_______________________________________________
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/20170331/0310263e/attachment.htm>