From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 1 07:55:49 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:55:49 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 In-Reply-To: <20170428183612.blccft5lmubwzygu@tarvainen.info> References: <20170424172534.lorr5m5gukwxd5lz@tarvainen.info> <47D749CB-53FB-4C3B-8746-6B3B21A188A4@gmail.com> <20170426135411.kuw6twuwsz72gcqy@roller.tarvainen.info> <20170428183612.blccft5lmubwzygu@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi, I think we can make the voting period shorter, probably not over 3 days, while confirming that councilors can make it. I think we already missed the deadline, the 3rd May deadline is for the GNSO to notify the empowered community and we should have confirmed the election at GNSO council at the last confcall in 20th April (attached the draft timeline that stirred the discussion) and the next GNSO council call is scheduled for the 18th May. I assume because of that the term will start later after the AGM and not at the end of AGM as usual. I am not sure if we need a motion to be submitted to GNSO council for election confirmation, but the deadline for submitting is Monday 8th May. Best, Rafik 2017-04-29 3:36 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen : > Dear PC, > > Unfortunately CSG is apparently unable to agree on this in time. I > have no reason to assume they actually object but they need to get > their ExComs to agree and it takes time. And if we want to have a vote > with email ballots it should've been started today to have acceptably > long voting period and get results by Wednesday. > > I can think of three options now: > > (1) Make do with less time for voting. We could try to get ICANN staff > (meaning Maryam) to start it during the weekend. Everything else aside, > that still requires CSG to agree quickly so I don't think this'll fly. > > (2) Have an NCPH councillor call on Tuesday (or maybe Wednesday > morning would work) and vote there (open vote). If we can find a > timeslot that's good for enough councillors this could work. > > (3) Miss the deadline. I'm not sure anything really bad would happen, > although it would be embarrassing. > > Opinions? > > Tapani > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 04:54:19PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen ( > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > > > > Yeah we should've had a proper process with discussion > > and all, but time is running out - deadline is 3 May. > > > > Suggestion: > > > > Let's have a vote with Matt and Markus and NotA on ballot, > > NCPH councillors (CSG, NCSG & NCA) voting, starting ASAP, > > vote to end by 2 May, 8 votes required for election. > > > > Any objections if I propose that to CSG? > > > > As to your question: CSG councillors vote as per their constituencies' > > decisions, and you can see those positions in Greg's mail I forwarded. > > > > Tapani > > > > On Apr 26 08:45, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Here?s another observer who thinks such things should be done through > a proper process entailing a) internal discussion and then b) vote. > > > > > > Question: do CSG Councilors just do whatever they like on this like us > or are their positions agreed within their respective constituencies? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 00:39, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Rafik > > > > > > > > Observer speaking, but wanted to revive this thread. I agree with > you that we should go to formal vote and include the NCA. > > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Rafik Dammak < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > with the response from CSG about their nomination, we should move > forward in this process: > > > > - we agreed previously to nominate Mathew and Markus as candidates > from NCSG. I think we can confirm that and send the names to CSG. > > > > - we have to agree on the process for this time: running. I think we > rejected before any kind of negotiation to agree on candidate and we > insisted on having a vote anyway. > > > > > > > > copying here what was suggested from Greg: > > > > > > > > "1. If it's possible for the NCSG to come up with a unified view on > this topic, and if that view is the same as CSG, Matthew could be nominated > by acclamation, without the need for a vote or a call. > > > > 2. If that's not possible, then we can do either: > > > > (a) a call to either (i) see if a nomination can be resolved on the > call, or (ii) to resolve the process from this point forward. > > > > (b) an election, but then we need to decide who is voting, and under > what terms. > > > > " > > > > I don't see any harm to have a call but I think we should go to > formal vote regardless of that and we need to include Julf as NCA to NCPH. > > > > agreeing on a long-term process seems unattainable goal but we still > have to try to make it. > > > > > > > > comments and suggestions are welcome. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > 2017-04-25 2:25 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen < > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info >: > > > > Congratulations, Matthew! > > > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Greg Shatan > ----- > > > > > > > > Subject: CSG Position on Board Seat 14 > > > > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:38:53 -0400 > > > > From: Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> > > > > To: Tapani Tarvainen tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com rafik.dammak at gmail.com>" rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> > > > > Cc: "Wilson, Christopher" >, > WUKnoben nline.de>> > > > > > > > > Dear Tapani and Rafik, > > > > > > > > The IPC, BC, and ISPCP have each deliberated regarding the current > > > > candidates for the NCPH-nominated Board seat. The groups have > conferred > > > > and arrived at a common position. Rather than nominating a candidate > > > > chosen by (and possibly from) the CSG at this time, or supporting the > > > > incumbent, the CSG constituencies choose to support Matthew Shears. > > > > > > > > We believe there can be great value in nominating from within the > > > > community. Matthew's efforts and contributions during the transition > were > > > > noticed by many in the CSG community. Of course, there should be no > > > > requirement that the nominee be from the community. However, the > level of > > > > engagement with and understanding of the community that Matt brings > will be > > > > much welcomed. We look forward to supporting Matt in his candidacy > and on > > > > the Board, and hope this sets a new paradigm for the NCPH seat. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Greg Shatan > > > > on behalf of the CSG > > > > > > > > > > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > > > > S: gsshatan > > > > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > > > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc < > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc < > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > *********************************************** > > > William J. Drake > > > International Fellow & Lecturer > > > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > > > University of Zurich, Switzerland > > > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > > > www.williamdrake.org > > > ************************************************ > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2017 Board Seat 14 Election Timeline 13 February 2017.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 159361 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Tue May 2 23:20:44 2017 From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 20:20:44 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election Message-ID: Dear NCSG Councilors, Voting for the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election, closes today at 2359 UTC. If you haven?t voted, please cast your vote. You should have received a ballot. If you have not received a ballot, please contact me ASAP. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support ? NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) S: maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 3 00:00:30 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 17:00:30 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7m7b2tIqenQbg5Dv-QnKVwP5mONzbWGwztE_JKKVcIL9-9OX5pAsDtUou_9P9I0T3vL4B9h57AFNdNTrZT8Wkp_t77SHaGs4H6OumONXzOQ=@ferdeline.com> (Just to be clear, this message is not directed at Maryam.) This is the first that I have heard that voting was actually underway for the 14th Board seat. Perhaps I missed an email, but I did not realise a timeline for this had been agreed. And I think it is not acceptable that this vote is being rushed through, as appears to be the case. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election Local Time: 2 May 2017 9:20 PM UTC Time: 2 May 2017 20:20 From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org To: NCSG PC Dear NCSG Councilors, Voting for the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election, closes today at 2359 UTC. If you haven?t voted, please cast your vote. You should have received a ballot. If you have not received a ballot, please contact me ASAP. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support ? NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) S: maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 3 03:06:10 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 20:06:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: Re: comments on the ICANN budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-rmRVZfCjzMJC3kbhfP55sibAwCdKaMz9lMG5pWIjlT3lwZSrq11b1tip12X49PN2kjDM-_0vwbnhSfLwLm5iI_JyZ52agNCV_Wex3M_97s=@ferdeline.com> Forwarding on behalf of Stephanie - 1. Why don't we try to submit a late comment? 2. We have a lot of open comments, notably the very important CCT review ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.pdf ). Poncelet started this comment, lets get some folks reading the report and commenting on the google document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit. I agree that we can do a better job of this. Let's try. Stephanie Perrin On 2017-05-02 16:57, Mueller, Milton L wrote: -----Original Message----- Before Ed came up with his comment, there had already been a comment drafted on the PC list (only), he posted there as a reaction to it, and while he could at that point have Cc'd ncsg-discuss, anybody else in PC list could have done it at any point just as well (or anyone not on the list but interested That's exactly what I have been trying to say: the PC - not out of ill intent, but out of habit and perhaps a bit of laziness - is increasingly siloing itself and excluding the SG as a whole from important discussions. I understand fully how easy it is to slip into this habit, I understand that it takes an extra bit of effort to include the rest of the membership. For that to change it has to be challenged. enough to follow it, after all it is publicly archived). An enormous amount of information is "publicly archived." One could spend the rest of one's life digging it out. This is not the way to go. Archives are there as a record. In real time, it is the _obligation_ of PC members and especially chairs of important committees to _push_ the information out to the membership. It's just too natural to follow up discussions wherever they are happening without thinking, and it does take an extra mental effort to stop and think with every time should I change the distribution now. I am asking everyone on the PC, and especially chairs and Councilors, to make that extra mental effort. Always. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 3 03:08:13 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 20:08:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: comments on the ICANN budget In-Reply-To: <92709af5-cb90-b820-ee04-edbf53aae11c@xplornet.com> References: <858cbaede93f4258b6bf626307e5d339@toast.net> <20170502162907.qghurepyy7mqb3ui@tarvainen.info> <92709af5-cb90-b820-ee04-edbf53aae11c@xplornet.com> Message-ID: Forwarding on behalf of Stephanie - I agree with Ayden that we could use some cat herders here. Also drafters of course. Had someone hounded me, I might have dragged myself away from a different drafting deadline to go over the draft comment. Cat herding is a great job for someone who feels they might not have the expertise to write the comment....a team of cat herders who could help us watch deadlines would be most appreciated. Some of us are on several committees and working groups, and we just plain forget the time. We do need more people to get engaged, and help. cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2017-05-02 17:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Hi Michael, It is true that cc'ing an extra email into a thread is not a difficult task, and I try to do it where I can. However, it is not that the NCSG's procedural complexity is beyond comprehension, it is that the issues we are responding to often require background knowledge. Please don't misunderstand me here; I think a lot of what we do at the moment in terms of gathering input is mere tokenism and we need to somehow implement a framework with more contemporary notions of participation, but this is not easy to do. I think the challenge is less that these issues are complicated (though they are) but that we are volunteers and do not have people here who are solely responsible for communicating concepts, facilitating input, herding the cats... I see participation as a lot like eating spinach. No one is against it in principle because we all accept it is good, but there's a real difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and doing it in a way that actually affects the outcome of the process. Ayden F?rdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: comments on the ICANN budget Local Time: 2 May 2017 10:17 PM UTC Time: 2 May 2017 21:17 From: mike.oghia at GMAIL.COM To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Hi all, Great suggestion Nadira, and perhaps more of this kind of delegation would strengthen engagement, lighten the load on those already volunteering, and provide more decentralized, bottom-up, and inclusive governance. With that said, I also want to stress that adding an email to CC is far from a difficult task. Not including the community in open deliberations is unacceptable. If our procedural complexity is beyond comprehension, then we need to seriously reevaluate how we expect anyone without 5-10 years of experience and a PhD or JD to get involved. Best, -Michael On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Nadira Alaraj wrote: Dear Tapani and all, I wanted to give a suggestion based your following paragraph regarding lack of resource. "I don't see any reason to accuse or blame anyone here, the fault lies simply in our lack of resources, too much work for too few people. " Given the fact that "NCUC's membership has reached 570 members, including 119 noncommercial organizations and 451 individuals. " When there is a lack of resources, the community membership is not engaged and that is alerting because no one wants to end up of mere number of membership. Instead of putting the load on the Policy Committee to do the comments on behalf of the whole community, why not to split their tasks to increase the productivity, by creating different sub-teams to the PC to utilize the diversity of knowledge among the community by assigning theme to each sub-team to prepare the comments with the lead of experienced PC before being shared with the community as a whole. The question that occurs in any one's mind, what would be the motivation of the volunteers in the sub-teams? What I can think of right now, but others might have other ideas, is to give sub-team members priority over other applicants for fellowships. Best, Nadira On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: Hi Michael, Policy Committee is in charge of endorsing comments on behalf of NCSG, so decisions about that have to take place in PC list and the way for people to get their comments endorsed as NCSG comments is to ask for support from the PC. Of course discussion could and in general should occur on this list, too, but when time is short, as it regrettably often is, people tend to do only what *must* be done. It would have been nice for for some PC member to relay discussion about this to the general list (and as a member of PC I'm guilty here as well), but sometimes we aren't able to do things in an optimal way. You can read the entire thread about Ed's comment in the PC list following the link he posted below. Ed made a comment and notified the PC, there was talk about endorsing it as NCSG comment but for whatever reason that never got anywhere - probably people were simply too busy. I don't see any reason to accuse or blame anyone here, the fault lies simply in our lack of resources, too much work for too few people. -- Tapani Tarvainen On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 05:36:09PM +0200, Michael Oghia (mike.oghia at GMAIL.COM) wrote: > > Thank you Ed for the clarification. Does anyone know why this wasn't > discussed more on this list? > > Best, > -Michael > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > > Hi Milton, > > > > As too often is the case, you rush to personal attack without first > > determining the facts. > > > > From the NCSG PC list (https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-April/ > > 000515.html ) > > > > ___ > > > > Hi Rafik, > > > > I?d like to thank those who stepped in to contribute to the budget > > comment. I sadly disagree with the tone and much of the content of the > > document. I do not endorse it. > > > > There was no way for me to edit the document without completely deleting > > much of what had previously been written there. I just didn?t feel that was > > an appropriate thing to do. > > > > Rather I have completed and submitted to the Comments Forum a Personal > > Comment, which I am attaching to this post. I welcome those who have > > stepped up to do the NCSG comment to consider what I had to say, borrow > > from my post, or disregard it completely. > > > > My objection to the NCSG comment as written consists of the following > > objections: > > > > 1. I believe it is too negative and accusatory and fails to recognize the > > hard work done by Finance and the unique nature of the first year of the > > Empowered Community. > > > > I have major problems with the process, and have expressed them in my > > Comment, along with suggested ways of improving cooperation and community > > input. However, I don?t believe any slights were deliberate or intentional. > > I believe the Community, including myself, erred in placing so many hard > > deadlines on Finance as part of the budget process in the new Bylaws. This > > is a year of adaptation but generalized critical comments without specific > > proposed solutions serve no purpose. And that is what much of the proposed > > NCSG comment consists of. > > > > 2. I find the objections to ALAC expenditures to appear as a stand alone > > attack on the AC. There are a number of areas of expenditure that many of > > us would find questionable. Why focus only on these in the absence of > > criticism of other questionable expenses? > > > > 3. I don?t find staff retreats to be among the most pressing fiscal > > matters. After all, as a supplemental request components of the NCSG asked > > for their own retreats and the GNSO Council was actually granted one. > > Should we not first oppose these retreats or is there a reason staff > > retreats are so onerous? > > > > 4. As noted in my personal comment, my biggest concern involves the lack > > of funding priority for core policy activities. I have focused on one > > unfunded proposal ? that of $100,000 for external PDP support ? and would > > encourage the NCSG to consider adopting this view. > > > > Although I can not endorse the comment, out of respect for the work done > > on the document I will not oppose it. I will abstain and hope my comments > > above as well as those in my personal comment will be considered by the PC. > > > > Regrettably, I have some domestic responsibilities to attend to this > > evening that must take priority over my volunteer activities here. Consider > > my abstention to be a permament one and feel free to borrow from, or > > ignore, my offerings on this matter. > > > > Best, > > > > Ed Morris > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Public comments are the purview of the NCSG Policy Committee, not the NCSG > > Finance Committee. With rare exceptions, discussions of the content of the > > public comments occur within the PC and not on the DISCUSS list. Maybe that > > is something we should re-think, however that problem is not unique to this > > comment. If you?d like to know why the NCSG did not submit a public comment > > on the budget I?d suggest you read the NCSG PC archives, ask the NCSG PC > > Chair or ask those who volunteered to write the comment at the last NCSG PC > > meeting. > > > > Contrary to your assertion, Milton, as above, I did share my comments with > > those who stepped forward to draft the comment for the Policy Committee. I > > should note that I was not one of those who volunteered to draft this > > comment for the PC. As a member of the P.C., though, I saw things I > > disagreed with in what was being done and shared my views. We were all on > > deadline, though, which made things difficult. In fact, one P.C. observer > > suggested the NCSG might want to endorse my comment (although qualifying > > her comment by stating she had yet to read my comment and may not even > > agree with her suggestion) (https://lists.ncsg.is/ > > pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-April/000518.html ). > > > > Not much else I can say Milton. You seem to delight in attacking me > > personally, facts notwithstanding. I hope you had fun. You can criticize me > > for being late to the conversation, but this is a volunteer position and I > > was busy elsewhere early in the comment period. I guess that doesn?t fit > > your narrative, a narrative which has little to do with fact. > > > > Ed Morris > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Mueller, Milton L > > wrote: > >> > >> I was interested in the public comments on ICANN's budget - I believe > >> this is the first one since the transition. > >> > >> I noticed that all stakeholder groups and constituencies except NCSG > >> filed comments on the budget. I was disappointed to see that instead of a > >> NCSG comment we have a lone individual, Ed Morris, commenting with his > >> personal opinions. Since Ed is supposed to be the chair of our NCSG finance > >> committee, one would have thought that he would post his comments to the > >> NCSG list for some feedback. > >> > >> Ed's comments (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail > >> /comments-fy18-budget-08mar17/attachments/20170428/440be454/ > >> budgetcomment-0001.pdf) make it clear that they are his personal > >> opinions and not necessarily those of the NCSG, but I find this very odd. > >> Normally, if you file comments individually, it is because you tried to > >> achieve NCSG consensus but could not. In that case, it's OK for folks to > >> file comments to reflect the different views. > >> > >> In this case, Ed made no effort to inform the group of his views on the > >> budget, much less attempt to gain some support for them. I think this is > >> not acceptable. The Chair of our Finance Committee needs to think of > >> himself as a delegate of the SG, not as someone who goes off into a silo > >> and does whatever he wants, without even informing the members who > >> appointed him. > >> > >> This becomes more serious when one realizes that in his comments, Ed > >> basically threatens ICANN with rejecting the entire budget because of a > >> disagreement over a small item. He says: > >> > >> "Unless bound by my Support Group to support this budget, I would be > >> inclined to favor rejecting the entire budget when it comes back to the > >> GNSO Council if this amount is not restored to the budget prior its final > >> adoption." > >> > >> I am not sure what Ed means by his "support group" but presumably that > >> means his Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency. But how are we supposed to > >> "bind" him to favor or oppose the budget if we don't even know that he has > >> made this threat? > >> > >> In sum, I am sure we all appreciate the willingness of volunteers to go > >> through the budget and make sense of it, but our delegates to these > >> committees have to understand that they are agents of NCSG and it is their > >> responsibility to liaise with the SG and inform the membership of their > >> actions, and to build consensus on positions when possible. It's not that > >> hard to write an email to the list and attach a draft of your proposed > >> comments. > >> > >> > >> Dr. Milton L Mueller > >> Professor, School of Public Policy > >> Georgia Institute of Technology > >> Internet Governance Project > >> http://internetgovernance.org/ > > > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed May 3 11:18:38 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 11:18:38 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Board Seat #14 Vote Results Message-ID: <20170503081838.GA29039@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Dear all, Please find attached the results of the board seat election. Here's quick summary: Total Ballots Cast (including duplicates): 13 Ballots Counted (excluding duplicates): 12 Voters Who Haven't Voted: 1 Board Seat 14 1: 11 votes [] Matthew Shears 2: 1 vote [] Markus Kummer 3: 0 votes [] Abstain I'll comment on the process in a separate message. -- Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed May 3 11:54:03 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 11:54:03 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election In-Reply-To: <7m7b2tIqenQbg5Dv-QnKVwP5mONzbWGwztE_JKKVcIL9-9OX5pAsDtUou_9P9I0T3vL4B9h57AFNdNTrZT8Wkp_t77SHaGs4H6OumONXzOQ=@ferdeline.com> References: <7m7b2tIqenQbg5Dv-QnKVwP5mONzbWGwztE_JKKVcIL9-9OX5pAsDtUou_9P9I0T3vL4B9h57AFNdNTrZT8Wkp_t77SHaGs4H6OumONXzOQ=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <20170503085403.GB29039@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Dear Ayden, all, The vote was indeed rushed, but under the circumstances it was nonetheless felt to be least bad option. Felt by whom, I guess you're thinking. What happened is that Rob Hoggarth sent a message on Monday to the chairs of all NCPH constituencies and SGs (Rafik was not included, but I Cc:'d him immediately - unfortunately though he was asleep at the time) reminding us of the deadline. CSG (which until now had been arguing for election by acclamation) said that if we really need an election, let's have one now with a short voting period, noting that this has been discussed long enough that everybody should be ready to vote. Farzaneh concurred and, recalling Rafik had earlier suggested we could make do with a shorter than normal voting period, I agreed as well. Nobody disagreed. The voting period was set as long as possible (given technical limitations of the voting software) to ensure results before the deadline. Special efforts were made to reach all councillors, and all but one eventually voted. Yes, it was a rushed process. We did not do exactly well. We had several months to work out the process, but failed to come up with one until the deadline forced our hand. And yes, we could have missed the deadline, but what we did still satisfied our main demands: we had a real vote rather than acclamation, NCA was included as we wanted &c. True, we could have just missed the deadline - it was really not as hard as Rob's message made it sound - and kept on trying to come up with a prettier procedure. And yes, it would've been good to have everything discussed at length and agreed upon on the list. But sometimes the better is the enemy of the good. And this had been discussed at length already, and time was running out. The obvious procedural issue here is that the process belongs to NCPH, and the election is up to NCPH councillors, but NCPH doesn't have any well-defined mechanism or procedures for deciding anything (apart from the gnso vice-chair election procedure we agreed on last year). And that's what we should fix. Should have fixed long ago, to avoid this mess. For now, I can't blame Rob for thinking that the closest thing to NCPH decision making body seems to be the collection of its chairs, and that's who made this decision. For my part, I took part in and supported that decision and stand by it, and I suggest we accept the outcome of the vote, although of course anyone is free to appeal against it, too. But I would welcome discussion about the process, what should have been done and how, and more importantly what should be done in the future. -- Tapani Tarvainen On May 02 17:00, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote: > (Just to be clear, this message is not directed at Maryam.) > > This is the first that I have heard that voting was actually underway for the 14th Board seat. Perhaps I missed an email, but I did not realise a timeline for this had been agreed. And I think it is not acceptable that this vote is being rushed through, as appears to be the case. > > Ayden > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election > Local Time: 2 May 2017 9:20 PM > UTC Time: 2 May 2017 20:20 > From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > To: NCSG PC > > Dear NCSG Councilors, > > Voting for the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election, closes today at 2359 UTC. > > If you haven?t voted, please cast your vote. > > You should have received a ballot. If you have not received a ballot, please contact me ASAP. > > Many thanks, > > -- > > Maryam Bakoshi > > Secretariat Support ? NCSG/NCUC/NPOC > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > S: maryam.bakoshi.icann > > T: +44 7737698036 > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 3 12:11:37 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 05:11:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election In-Reply-To: <20170503085403.GB29039@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <7m7b2tIqenQbg5Dv-QnKVwP5mONzbWGwztE_JKKVcIL9-9OX5pAsDtUou_9P9I0T3vL4B9h57AFNdNTrZT8Wkp_t77SHaGs4H6OumONXzOQ=@ferdeline.com> <20170503085403.GB29039@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: For what it is worth, and I realise this is not much, I do not think the process followed was sufficient and for that reason I do not accept as legitimate the outcome. A vote that was open for only a few hours (three hours, I am told - though nothing is public so I cannot verify that) and not advertised in advance is no vote at all. This is not a reflection on Matthew or Markus as candidates; it is only my feeling that the process followed was incredibly unsatisfactory, un-transparent, and rushed in order to meet an arbitrary deadline. I don't think it is acceptable to simply say, we need to have a discussion about what should be done in the future. What happened this week is not okay, and I think it reflects very poorly on the NCSG that we would agree to this sham process put forward by the CSG at the last minute. I know that not everyone will agree with my characterisation of the process, but it certainly looks to me like the only reason why our Councillors were allowed to exercise their right to vote was because their voting posed no existential threat to the desired outcome. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election Local Time: 3 May 2017 9:54 AM UTC Time: 3 May 2017 08:54 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu Dear Ayden, all, The vote was indeed rushed, but under the circumstances it was nonetheless felt to be least bad option. Felt by whom, I guess you're thinking. What happened is that Rob Hoggarth sent a message on Monday to the chairs of all NCPH constituencies and SGs (Rafik was not included, but I Cc:'d him immediately - unfortunately though he was asleep at the time) reminding us of the deadline. CSG (which until now had been arguing for election by acclamation) said that if we really need an election, let's have one now with a short voting period, noting that this has been discussed long enough that everybody should be ready to vote. Farzaneh concurred and, recalling Rafik had earlier suggested we could make do with a shorter than normal voting period, I agreed as well. Nobody disagreed. The voting period was set as long as possible (given technical limitations of the voting software) to ensure results before the deadline. Special efforts were made to reach all councillors, and all but one eventually voted. Yes, it was a rushed process. We did not do exactly well. We had several months to work out the process, but failed to come up with one until the deadline forced our hand. And yes, we could have missed the deadline, but what we did still satisfied our main demands: we had a real vote rather than acclamation, NCA was included as we wanted &c. True, we could have just missed the deadline - it was really not as hard as Rob's message made it sound - and kept on trying to come up with a prettier procedure. And yes, it would've been good to have everything discussed at length and agreed upon on the list. But sometimes the better is the enemy of the good. And this had been discussed at length already, and time was running out. The obvious procedural issue here is that the process belongs to NCPH, and the election is up to NCPH councillors, but NCPH doesn't have any well-defined mechanism or procedures for deciding anything (apart from the gnso vice-chair election procedure we agreed on last year). And that's what we should fix. Should have fixed long ago, to avoid this mess. For now, I can't blame Rob for thinking that the closest thing to NCPH decision making body seems to be the collection of its chairs, and that's who made this decision. For my part, I took part in and supported that decision and stand by it, and I suggest we accept the outcome of the vote, although of course anyone is free to appeal against it, too. But I would welcome discussion about the process, what should have been done and how, and more importantly what should be done in the future. -- Tapani Tarvainen On May 02 17:00, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote: > (Just to be clear, this message is not directed at Maryam.) > > This is the first that I have heard that voting was actually underway for the 14th Board seat. Perhaps I missed an email, but I did not realise a timeline for this had been agreed. And I think it is not acceptable that this vote is being rushed through, as appears to be the case. > > Ayden > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election > Local Time: 2 May 2017 9:20 PM > UTC Time: 2 May 2017 20:20 > From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > To: NCSG PC > > Dear NCSG Councilors, > > Voting for the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election, closes today at 2359 UTC. > > If you haven?t voted, please cast your vote. > > You should have received a ballot. If you have not received a ballot, please contact me ASAP. > > Many thanks, > > -- > > Maryam Bakoshi > > Secretariat Support ? NCSG/NCUC/NPOC > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > S: maryam.bakoshi.icann > > T: +44 7737698036 > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed May 3 12:31:12 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 12:31:12 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election In-Reply-To: References: <7m7b2tIqenQbg5Dv-QnKVwP5mONzbWGwztE_JKKVcIL9-9OX5pAsDtUou_9P9I0T3vL4B9h57AFNdNTrZT8Wkp_t77SHaGs4H6OumONXzOQ=@ferdeline.com> <20170503085403.GB29039@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <20170503093112.GF29039@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Hi Ayden, The vote was open for little over 24 hours - I don't know where you heard it was only three. Maryam (or any of the councillors for that matter) can confirm the exact time if needed. As for your allegation about why our councillors were allowed to vote, I completely fail to see how anyone could have prevented it, other than themselves agreeing - which they didn't, despite CSG suggestion, so we did have a vote. The process was not "put forward by the CSG at the last minute", rather they agreed to our earlier suggestion in every detail, apart from the rushed timeline - that was the only real irregularity in the election. If you think there's something more than discussion needed, you are of course welcome to suggest any action you like, contest the election, demand punishment for me or whoever you think is the guilty party, or whatever. But I tend to think it'd be up to the councillors if they want to complain about the timeline or reject the results because of it. Tapani On May 03 05:11, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote: > For what it is worth, and I realise this is not much, I do not think the process followed was sufficient and for that reason I do not accept as legitimate the outcome. A vote that was open for only a few hours (three hours, I am told - though nothing is public so I cannot verify that) and not advertised in advance is no vote at all. This is not a reflection on Matthew or Markus as candidates; it is only my feeling that the process followed was incredibly unsatisfactory, un-transparent, and rushed in order to meet an arbitrary deadline. > > I don't think it is acceptable to simply say, we need to have a discussion about what should be done in the future. What happened this week is not okay, and I think it reflects very poorly on the NCSG that we would agree to this sham process put forward by the CSG at the last minute. I know that not everyone will agree with my characterisation of the process, but it certainly looks to me like the only reason why our Councillors were allowed to exercise their right to vote was because their voting posed no existential threat to the desired outcome. > > Ayden > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election > Local Time: 3 May 2017 9:54 AM > UTC Time: 3 May 2017 08:54 > From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > Dear Ayden, all, > > The vote was indeed rushed, but under the circumstances > it was nonetheless felt to be least bad option. > > Felt by whom, I guess you're thinking. > > What happened is that Rob Hoggarth sent a message on Monday to the > chairs of all NCPH constituencies and SGs (Rafik was not included, but > I Cc:'d him immediately - unfortunately though he was asleep at the > time) reminding us of the deadline. > > CSG (which until now had been arguing for election by acclamation) > said that if we really need an election, let's have one now with a > short voting period, noting that this has been discussed long enough > that everybody should be ready to vote. Farzaneh concurred and, > recalling Rafik had earlier suggested we could make do with a shorter > than normal voting period, I agreed as well. Nobody disagreed. The > voting period was set as long as possible (given technical limitations > of the voting software) to ensure results before the deadline. Special > efforts were made to reach all councillors, and all but one eventually > voted. > > Yes, it was a rushed process. We did not do exactly well. We had > several months to work out the process, but failed to come up with one > until the deadline forced our hand. And yes, we could have missed the > deadline, but what we did still satisfied our main demands: we had a > real vote rather than acclamation, NCA was included as we wanted &c. > > True, we could have just missed the deadline - it was really not as > hard as Rob's message made it sound - and kept on trying to come up > with a prettier procedure. And yes, it would've been good to have > everything discussed at length and agreed upon on the list. > > But sometimes the better is the enemy of the good. And this had been > discussed at length already, and time was running out. > > The obvious procedural issue here is that the process belongs to NCPH, > and the election is up to NCPH councillors, but NCPH doesn't have any > well-defined mechanism or procedures for deciding anything (apart > from the gnso vice-chair election procedure we agreed on last year). > > And that's what we should fix. Should have fixed long ago, to avoid > this mess. For now, I can't blame Rob for thinking that the closest > thing to NCPH decision making body seems to be the collection of its > chairs, and that's who made this decision. > > For my part, I took part in and supported that decision and stand by > it, and I suggest we accept the outcome of the vote, although of > course anyone is free to appeal against it, too. > > But I would welcome discussion about the process, what should have > been done and how, and more importantly what should be done in the > future. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > On May 02 17:00, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote: > > > (Just to be clear, this message is not directed at Maryam.) > > > > This is the first that I have heard that voting was actually underway for the 14th Board seat. Perhaps I missed an email, but I did not realise a timeline for this had been agreed. And I think it is not acceptable that this vote is being rushed through, as appears to be the case. > > > > Ayden > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election > > Local Time: 2 May 2017 9:20 PM > > UTC Time: 2 May 2017 20:20 > > From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org > > To: NCSG PC > > > > Dear NCSG Councilors, > > > > Voting for the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election, closes today at 2359 UTC. > > > > If you haven?t voted, please cast your vote. > > > > You should have received a ballot. If you have not received a ballot, please contact me ASAP. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > -- > > > > Maryam Bakoshi > > > > Secretariat Support ? NCSG/NCUC/NPOC > > > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > S: maryam.bakoshi.icann > > > > T: +44 7737698036 > From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed May 3 16:45:07 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 13:45:07 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG - Invitation to edit In-Reply-To: References: <3f72953d-8dca-4112-8567-375355a4cc68@docs-share.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Please as the deadline for the CCT RT was extended to the 19th of May 2019, I was wondering if any one else had stuff to add, before I send of the text https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit?usp=sharing_eil&invite=CPecwecO&ts=58f9e6d5 Will be grateful to know. Thanks Poncelet On 25 April 2017 at 17:08, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Thanks Rafik, > > Definitely good idea. > > Poncelet > > On 25 April 2017 at 08:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> please review the comment shared by Poncelet, the deadline for submission >> was extended to the 19th May >> so we have an opportunity to expand our comment. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> 2017-04-21 20:02 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs) via NCSG-PC >> : >> >>> Poncelet Ileleji has invited you to *edit* the >>> following document: >>> CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG >>> >>> [image: Sender's profile photo]Dear Colleagues, >>> Please review initial draft, make comments and revision of text as >>> applicable; before I send it off on Tuesday latest. Lucas made some >>> suggestions already, and Rafik has suggestd we get Carlos involved. Thanks >>> >>> Open in Docs >>> >>> This email grants access to this item. Only forward it to people you >>> trust. >>> Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. >>> Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA >>> You have received this email because someone shared a document with you >>> from Google Docs. [image: Logo for Google Docs] >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 <437%200240> > Fax:(220) 4390793 <439%200793> > Cell:(220) 9912508 <991%202508> > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed May 3 18:15:03 2017 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 11:15:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG - Invitation to edit In-Reply-To: References: <3f72953d-8dca-4112-8567-375355a4cc68@docs-share.google.com> Message-ID: <8e2295c2-76b8-2a23-cbdc-7715e16bf81d@kathykleiman.com> Hi Poncelet, I have a lot to add, but this is a very busy time in the Working Groups. Tx for kicking it off and hope to have more to add soon. Best, Kathy On 5/3/2017 9:45 AM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Please as the deadline for the CCT RT was extended to the 19th of May > 2019, I was wondering if any one else had stuff to add, before I send > of the text > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit?usp=sharing_eil&invite=CPecwecO&ts=58f9e6d5 > > Will be grateful to know. > > Thanks > > Poncelet > > On 25 April 2017 at 17:08, Poncelet Ileleji > wrote: > > Thanks Rafik, > > Definitely good idea. > > Poncelet > > On 25 April 2017 at 08:56, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > please review the comment shared by Poncelet, the deadline for > submission was extended to the 19th May > so we have an opportunity to expand our comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > 2017-04-21 20:02 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs) > via NCSG-PC >: > > Poncelet Ileleji has invited you > to *edit* the following document: > CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG > > Sender's profile photoDear Colleagues, > Please review initial draft, make comments and revision of > text as applicable; before I send it off on Tuesday > latest. Lucas made some suggestions already, and Rafik has > suggestd we get Carlos involved. Thanks > > Open in Docs > > This email grants access to this item. Only forward it to > people you trust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. > Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA > 94043, USA > You have received this email because someone shared a > document with you from Google Docs. Logo for Google Docs > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > * > * > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > * > * > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed May 3 18:19:23 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 15:19:23 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG - Invitation to edit In-Reply-To: <8e2295c2-76b8-2a23-cbdc-7715e16bf81d@kathykleiman.com> References: <3f72953d-8dca-4112-8567-375355a4cc68@docs-share.google.com> <8e2295c2-76b8-2a23-cbdc-7715e16bf81d@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Dear Kathy, Thanks for the heads up, we have till 19th May so approximately 16 days. Kind Regards Poncelet On 3 May 2017 at 15:15, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Poncelet, > > I have a lot to add, but this is a very busy time in the Working Groups. > Tx for kicking it off and hope to have more to add soon. > > Best, Kathy > > On 5/3/2017 9:45 AM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Please as the deadline for the CCT RT was extended to the 19th of May > 2019, I was wondering if any one else had stuff to add, before I send of > the text https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZj > tjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit?usp=sharing_eil&invite=CPecwecO&ts=58f9e6d5 > > Will be grateful to know. > > Thanks > > Poncelet > > On 25 April 2017 at 17:08, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > >> Thanks Rafik, >> >> Definitely good idea. >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 25 April 2017 at 08:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> please review the comment shared by Poncelet, the deadline for >>> submission was extended to the 19th May >>> so we have an opportunity to expand our comment. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> 2017-04-21 20:02 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs) via >>> NCSG-PC : >>> >>>> Poncelet Ileleji has invited you to *edit* the >>>> following document: >>>> CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG >>>> >>>> [image: Sender's profile photo]Dear Colleagues, >>>> Please review initial draft, make comments and revision of text as >>>> applicable; before I send it off on Tuesday latest. Lucas made some >>>> suggestions already, and Rafik has suggestd we get Carlos involved. Thanks >>>> >>>> Open in Docs >>>> >>>> This email grants access to this item. Only forward it to people you >>>> trust. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. >>>> Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA >>>> You have received this email because someone shared a document with you >>>> from Google Docs. [image: Logo for Google Docs] >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 <437%200240> >> Fax:(220) 4390793 <439%200793> >> Cell:(220) 9912508 <991%202508> >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 <437%200240> > Fax:(220) 4390793 <439%200793> > Cell:(220) 9912508 <991%202508> > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu May 4 02:08:00 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 08:08:00 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG - Invitation to edit In-Reply-To: References: <3f72953d-8dca-4112-8567-375355a4cc68@docs-share.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Poncelet, Thanks, better to resend the link to NCSG as reminder for members to review and add comments. We still need discussion at PC list to review and endorse the statement before submitting it. Best, Rafik On May 3, 2017 10:45 PM, "Poncelet Ileleji" wrote: Dear Colleagues, Please as the deadline for the CCT RT was extended to the 19th of May 2019, I was wondering if any one else had stuff to add, before I send of the text https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZj tjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit?usp=sharing_eil&invite=CPecwecO&ts=58f9e6d5 Will be grateful to know. Thanks Poncelet On 25 April 2017 at 17:08, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Thanks Rafik, > > Definitely good idea. > > Poncelet > > On 25 April 2017 at 08:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> please review the comment shared by Poncelet, the deadline for submission >> was extended to the 19th May >> so we have an opportunity to expand our comment. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> 2017-04-21 20:02 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs) via NCSG-PC >> : >> >>> Poncelet Ileleji has invited you to *edit* the >>> following document: >>> CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG >>> >>> [image: Sender's profile photo]Dear Colleagues, >>> Please review initial draft, make comments and revision of text as >>> applicable; before I send it off on Tuesday latest. Lucas made some >>> suggestions already, and Rafik has suggestd we get Carlos involved. Thanks >>> >>> Open in Docs >>> >>> This email grants access to this item. Only forward it to people you >>> trust. >>> Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. >>> Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA >>> You have received this email because someone shared a document with you >>> from Google Docs. [image: Logo for Google Docs] >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 <437%200240> > Fax:(220) 4390793 <439%200793> > Cell:(220) 9912508 <991%202508> > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 5 12:40:27 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:40:27 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments Message-ID: Hi all, Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the African DNS Market Study ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en ) While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. Best, Rafik =================================================== Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study (ADNSMS) The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South Africa Communications Forum. Methodology This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain Name Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of the criteria used in the DNS success index. 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration of the (ADNSMS) Section 5 - Africa Rising Comment: 1. In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages 85 & 86. 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the main report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their originality. Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market Comment: 1. This section provides useful background information but it could benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a review. 1. The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to be tracked in each context. Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region (see prior comment on methodology) Comment: 1. Please see above request for country profiles for all countries 1. The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. Section 8 Key success factors registries Section 9 - Growth Outlook The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this linked to key factors at the country context. The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific starting points. ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 5 12:45:47 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:45:47 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment Message-ID: Hi all, we have a new public comment open and I am sending this as a call for volunteers who want to take the lead on drafting a NCSG statement. It is a good opportunity for those with strong interest on data protection. I think that Stephanie participated in the group tasked to discuss the Whois conflict with national laws and she can probably share some background here. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *From: *ICANN News Alert *Reply-To: *"no-reply at external.icann.org" *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 01:30 *To: *Marika Konings *Subject: *[Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment [image: CANN][icann.org] News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-03-en[icann.org] ------------------------------ Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment 3 May 2017 LOS ANGELES ? 3 May 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today published a paper, "Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps," for public comment. *Read the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org] * [PDF, 159 KB]. This paper is available for public comment through 12 June 2017. Feedback will be incorporated into a report of public comments and provided to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council for their review and consideration. *Comment on the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org] * . In accordance with the ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law (Whois Procedure)[icann.org] , this paper opens a review process to gather community input on the effectiveness of the revised Whois Procedure, which was made effective on 18 April 2017. Furthermore, as requested by the GNSO Council, ICANN is publishing this paper to provide analysis of and solicit community input on the practicality and feasibility of the triggers, as well as suggestions for moving forward with the review. Outputs from this assessment and comment process are expected to inform the next periodic review of the procedure. The Whois Procedure has recently been updated, although no ICANN-accredited registrar or registry operator to date has formally invoked the procedure. As a result, this analysis is based solely on community discussions and input received during the previous review[gnso.icann.org] [PDF, 155 KB], which related to allowing for evaluation of an additional trigger for invoking the procedure. It also draws upon ICANN's experience administering other processes where a contracted party is seeking ICANN's approval for new services, or waiving certain contractual requirements, as a point of comparison for the implementation of the procedure. 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] .* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 5 13:04:51 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 06:04:51 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3PR8oiYJ7iG2BxAt4Py9QKwPRamkChzhD4LswjTG2MlV7MlkTHzAe78GGeuGDK9r7fAFB0FlR2hR3x29LnRvgzOJT7xuKPegBwvspXyc2HU=@ferdeline.com> Thanks for letting us know that this comment has opened, Rafik. I am happy to work on a first draft of this public comment over the weekend, and get it out to the NCSG list to see what other members think. As there are still five weeks until comments are due, it seems like we might have time to schedule a brief call (for the NCSG membership) where I or others can walk people through the comment and see, on the call, if anyone has any suggested edits. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment Local Time: May 5, 2017 10:45 AM UTC Time: May 5, 2017 9:45 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu , ncsg-pc Hi all, we have a new public comment open and I am sending this as a call for volunteers who want to take the lead on drafting a NCSG statement. It is a good opportunity for those with strong interest on data protection. I think that Stephanie participated in the group tasked to discuss the Whois conflict with national laws and she can probably share some background here. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert Reply-To: "no-reply at external.icann.org" Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 01:30 To: Marika Konings Subject: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment [CANN][icann.org](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=6V4WSfJlCvfGHagL0A61eO3gp0CdwQGAaDKw_lwpNWo&e=) News Alert [https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-03-en[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2017-2D05-2D03-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=6Eivc2vwZqN_e1JXuWLbbADqE8SwODCZpZh_nucxv68&e=) --------------------------------------------------------------- Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment 3 May 2017 LOS ANGELES ? 3 May 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today published a paper, "Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps," for public comment. [Read the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dconflicts-2Dprocedure-2D03may17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=AFF2DPSvZ3TgeLC-8lrmCCBUTDPwPef3SVwBvlXW0KI&e=) [PDF, 159 KB]. This paper is available for public comment through 12 June 2017. Feedback will be incorporated into a report of public comments and provided to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council for their review and consideration. [Comment on the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dlaw-2D2017-2D05-2D03-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=q6EIeQotm2_QYjG4lebrrBkaHljOPA1SRCgXvOoCNVc&e=). In accordance with the [ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law (Whois Procedure)[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dconflicts-2Dprocedure-2D2008-2D01-2D17-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=JVtDVVlkiVKJlfNhAHNYjoWK5MSHkcxOLn9mfm2Hb64&e=), this paper opens a review process to gather community input on the effectiveness of the revised Whois Procedure, which was made effective on 18 April 2017. Furthermore, as requested by the GNSO Council, ICANN is publishing this paper to provide analysis of and solicit community input on the practicality and feasibility of the triggers, as well as suggestions for moving forward with the review. Outputs from this assessment and comment process are expected to inform the next periodic review of the procedure. The Whois Procedure has recently been updated, although no ICANN-accredited registrar or registry operator to date has formally invoked the procedure. As a result, this analysis is based solely on community discussions and input received during the [previous review[gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_iag-2Dreview-2Dwhois-2Dconflicts-2Dprocedure-2D23may16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=iA9BlMBg6D_w9aDcbBYK0tHeze09v7D_jlxJiE932k0&e=) [PDF, 155 KB], which related to allowing for evaluation of an additional trigger for invoking the procedure. It also draws upon ICANN's experience administering other processes where a contracted party is seeking ICANN's approval for new services, or waiving certain contractual requirements, as a point of comparison for the implementation of the procedure. 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=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=W1cz9M9nk_PfKsxr4Zt6P_5CLDlAKZTsgrAVo_569x8&e=). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 5 14:27:39 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 20:27:39 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: <3PR8oiYJ7iG2BxAt4Py9QKwPRamkChzhD4LswjTG2MlV7MlkTHzAe78GGeuGDK9r7fAFB0FlR2hR3x29LnRvgzOJT7xuKPegBwvspXyc2HU=@ferdeline.com> References: <3PR8oiYJ7iG2BxAt4Py9QKwPRamkChzhD4LswjTG2MlV7MlkTHzAe78GGeuGDK9r7fAFB0FlR2hR3x29LnRvgzOJT7xuKPegBwvspXyc2HU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, thanks for volunteering. sharing a first draft which can be used as a strawman is welcome. we can schedule either a standalone call for this topic or put it as an agenda item for the next NCSG Policy Call in less than 2 weeks. I am in favor of the former option since it gives more time for discussion and presentation. Best, Rafik 2017-05-05 19:04 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Thanks for letting us know that this comment has opened, Rafik. I am happy > to work on a first draft of this public comment over the weekend, and get > it out to the NCSG list to see what other members think. > > As there are still five weeks until comments are due, it seems like we > might have time to schedule a brief call (for the NCSG membership) where I > or others can walk people through the comment and see, on the call, if > anyone has any suggested edits. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts > with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment > Local Time: May 5, 2017 10:45 AM > UTC Time: May 5, 2017 9:45 AM > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu , > ncsg-pc > > Hi all, > > we have a new public comment open and I am sending this as a call for > volunteers who want to take the lead on drafting a NCSG statement. It is a > good opportunity for those with strong interest on data protection. > > I think that Stephanie participated in the group tasked to discuss the > Whois conflict with national laws and she can probably share some > background here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > *From: *ICANN News Alert > *Reply-To: *"no-reply at external.icann.org" > *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 01:30 > *To: *Marika Konings > *Subject: *[Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling > Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available > for Public Comment > > > > [image: CANN][icann.org] > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-03-en[icann.org] > > ------------------------------ > > Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: > Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment > > 3 May 2017 > > LOS ANGELES ? 3 May 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) today published a paper, "Revised ICANN Procedure for > Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps," for > public comment. > > *Read the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with > Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org] > * > [PDF, 159 KB]. > > This paper is available for public comment through 12 June 2017. Feedback > will be incorporated into a report of public comments and provided to the > Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council for their review and > consideration. > > *Comment on the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with > Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org] > * > . > > In accordance with the ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with > Privacy Law (Whois Procedure)[icann.org] > , > this paper opens a review process to gather community input on the > effectiveness of the revised Whois Procedure, which was made effective on > 18 April 2017. Furthermore, as requested by the GNSO Council, ICANN is > publishing this paper to provide analysis of and solicit community input on > the practicality and feasibility of the triggers, as well as suggestions > for moving forward with the review. Outputs from this assessment and > comment process are expected to inform the next periodic review of the > procedure. > > The Whois Procedure has recently been updated, although no > ICANN-accredited registrar or registry operator to date has formally > invoked the procedure. As a result, this analysis is based solely on > community discussions and input received during the previous > review[gnso.icann.org] > > [PDF, 155 KB], which related to allowing for evaluation of an additional > trigger for invoking the procedure. It also draws upon ICANN's experience > administering other processes where a contracted party is seeking ICANN's > approval for new services, or waiving certain contractual requirements, as > a point of comparison for the implementation of the procedure. > 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] > .* > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 5 14:33:31 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 07:33:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <3PR8oiYJ7iG2BxAt4Py9QKwPRamkChzhD4LswjTG2MlV7MlkTHzAe78GGeuGDK9r7fAFB0FlR2hR3x29LnRvgzOJT7xuKPegBwvspXyc2HU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, I was thinking of both. I think a standalone call is important to engage community members with no background of the topic. I was thinking that Stephanie and I (and others if interested) could provide the members on the call with an introduction first to the issues at play, then walk them through the comment, and ask focused questions to understand what members on the call think. I cannot see this taking less than 60 minutes; if it was a part of the PC call, it would dominate it. It would also show that we are responsive to community concerns, given recent conversations on the list that we do not engage the membership in our comments. I am happy to update the PC on the policy call as well, but at a higher-level and only taking 5-10 minutes up of the meeting. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment Local Time: May 5, 2017 12:27 PM UTC Time: May 5, 2017 11:27 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Ayden F?rdeline ncsg-pc Hi Ayden, thanks for volunteering. sharing a first draft which can be used as a strawman is welcome. we can schedule either a standalone call for this topic or put it as an agenda item for the next NCSG Policy Call in less than 2 weeks. I am in favor of the former option since it gives more time for discussion and presentation. Best, Rafik 2017-05-05 19:04 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Thanks for letting us know that this comment has opened, Rafik. I am happy to work on a first draft of this public comment over the weekend, and get it out to the NCSG list to see what other members think. As there are still five weeks until comments are due, it seems like we might have time to schedule a brief call (for the NCSG membership) where I or others can walk people through the comment and see, on the call, if anyone has any suggested edits. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment Local Time: May 5, 2017 10:45 AM UTC Time: May 5, 2017 9:45 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu , ncsg-pc Hi all, we have a new public comment open and I am sending this as a call for volunteers who want to take the lead on drafting a NCSG statement. It is a good opportunity for those with strong interest on data protection. I think that Stephanie participated in the group tasked to discuss the Whois conflict with national laws and she can probably share some background here. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert Reply-To: "no-reply at external.icann.org" Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 01:30 To: Marika Konings Subject: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment [CANN][icann.org](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=6V4WSfJlCvfGHagL0A61eO3gp0CdwQGAaDKw_lwpNWo&e=) News Alert [https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-03-en[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D2017-2D05-2D03-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=6Eivc2vwZqN_e1JXuWLbbADqE8SwODCZpZh_nucxv68&e=) --------------------------------------------------------------- Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment 3 May 2017 LOS ANGELES ? 3 May 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today published a paper, "Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps," for public comment. [Read the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dconflicts-2Dprocedure-2D03may17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=AFF2DPSvZ3TgeLC-8lrmCCBUTDPwPef3SVwBvlXW0KI&e=) [PDF, 159 KB]. This paper is available for public comment through 12 June 2017. Feedback will be incorporated into a report of public comments and provided to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council for their review and consideration. [Comment on the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dlaw-2D2017-2D05-2D03-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=q6EIeQotm2_QYjG4lebrrBkaHljOPA1SRCgXvOoCNVc&e=). In accordance with the [ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law (Whois Procedure)[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dconflicts-2Dprocedure-2D2008-2D01-2D17-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=JVtDVVlkiVKJlfNhAHNYjoWK5MSHkcxOLn9mfm2Hb64&e=), this paper opens a review process to gather community input on the effectiveness of the revised Whois Procedure, which was made effective on 18 April 2017. Furthermore, as requested by the GNSO Council, ICANN is publishing this paper to provide analysis of and solicit community input on the practicality and feasibility of the triggers, as well as suggestions for moving forward with the review. Outputs from this assessment and comment process are expected to inform the next periodic review of the procedure. The Whois Procedure has recently been updated, although no ICANN-accredited registrar or registry operator to date has formally invoked the procedure. As a result, this analysis is based solely on community discussions and input received during the [previous review[gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_iag-2Dreview-2Dwhois-2Dconflicts-2Dprocedure-2D23may16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=iA9BlMBg6D_w9aDcbBYK0tHeze09v7D_jlxJiE932k0&e=) [PDF, 155 KB], which related to allowing for evaluation of an additional trigger for invoking the procedure. It also draws upon ICANN's experience administering other processes where a contracted party is seeking ICANN's approval for new services, or waiving certain contractual requirements, as a point of comparison for the implementation of the procedure. 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=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=FlLnWuWfHq02ox_3kxWHFf4D9p7Hlq8vaIH10JNTVvI&s=W1cz9M9nk_PfKsxr4Zt6P_5CLDlAKZTsgrAVo_569x8&e=). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 5 15:44:26 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 13:44:26 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> Thanks James. The consultation is here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en Deadline: 10 May One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but would love to hear otherwise. Looking forward to your comments. Matthew On 05/05/2017 13:36, James Gannon wrote: > > Hi All, > > Please find a proposed comment from myself and Matt on the changes to > the BGC with regards to its movement of reconsideration requests to a > new board committee. > > Please provide any feedback while this is in consideration by the > Policy Committee. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing > > -James > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 5 16:00:55 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 09:00:55 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes In-Reply-To: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: I have added some comments to the Google Doc suggesting some minor, stylistic changes. However, I am happy to support the spirit and intent of the comment, and believe it is well done. Thank you to James and Matthew for writing it. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes Local Time: May 5, 2017 1:44 PM UTC Time: May 5, 2017 12:44 PM From: matthew at intpolicy.com To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU , ncsg-pc James Gannon Thanks James. The consultation is here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en Deadline: 10 May One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but would love to hear otherwise. Looking forward to your comments. Matthew On 05/05/2017 13:36, James Gannon wrote: Hi All, Please find a proposed comment from myself and Matt on the changes to the BGC with regards to its movement of reconsideration requests to a new board committee. Please provide any feedback while this is in consideration by the Policy Committee. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing -James 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) #DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2 -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 5 16:16:36 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 22:16:36 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed comments on BGC Changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Please find here a draft comments on BGC changes. We have to review this asap since the deadline for submission is the 10th May. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "James Gannon" Date: May 5, 2017 9:39 PM Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed comments on BGC Changes To: Cc: Hi All, Please find a proposed comment from myself and Matt on the changes to the BGC with regards to its movement of reconsideration requests to a new board committee. Please provide any feedback while this is in consideration by the Policy Committee. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wD FxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing -James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 5 16:48:53 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 09:48:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you so much for taking the lead here, Dorothy, and drafting this comment. I am wondering, is a 22% response rate really considered low? Considering the length of the survey (200+ questions), limited languages (it was not translated into local ones), the specialised level of knowledge required to respond to the questions, and the medium through which it was distributed (online only, circulated via email) I am thinking hearing back from 22% of the 1,400 people/organisations sent the questionnaire perhaps it isn't too bad. Maybe we should ask, are the responses that came in broadly representative of everyone polled? If not - and, full disclosure, I haven't looked at the data so I don't know if this is the case - maybe we should draw attention to that. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments Local Time: May 5, 2017 10:40 AM UTC Time: May 5, 2017 9:40 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu ncsg-pc Hi all, Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. Best, Rafik =================================================== [Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) (ADNSMS) The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South Africa Communications Forum. Methodology This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain Name Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of the criteria used in the DNS success index. 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration of the (ADNSMS) Section 5 - Africa Rising Comment: - In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages 85 & 86. 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the main report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their originality. Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market Comment: - This section provides useful background information but it could benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a review. - The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to be tracked in each context. Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region (see prior comment on methodology) Comment: - Please see above request for country profiles for all countries - The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. Section 8 Key success factors registries Section 9 - Growth Outlook The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this linked to key factors at the country context. The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific starting points. ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri May 5 17:08:41 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 10:08:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7535e513-0a0e-a351-e401-154486d63793@mail.utoronto.ca> Indeed, happy to help with this. Stephanie On 2017-05-05 05:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > we have a new public comment open and I am sending this as a call for > volunteers who want to take the lead on drafting a NCSG statement. It > is a good opportunity for those with strong interest on data protection. > > I think that Stephanie participated in the group tasked to discuss the > Whois conflict with national laws and she can probably share some > background here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > *From: *ICANN News Alert > > *Reply-To: *"no-reply at external.icann.org > " > > *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 01:30 > *To: *Marika Konings > > *Subject: *[Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Revised ICANN Procedure for > Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps > Now Available for Public Comment > > CANN[icann.org] > > > > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-03-en[icann.org] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy > Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment > > 3 May 2017 > > LOS ANGELES ? 3 May 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names > and Numbers (ICANN) today published a paper, "Revised ICANN Procedure > for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next > Steps," for public comment. > > *Read the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with > Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org] > * > [PDF, 159 KB]. > > This paper is available for public comment through 12 June 2017. > Feedback will be incorporated into a report of public comments and > provided to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council > for their review and consideration. > > *Comment on the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts > with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org] > *. > > In accordance with the ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts > with Privacy Law (Whois Procedure)[icann.org] > , > this paper opens a review process to gather community input on the > effectiveness of the revised Whois Procedure, which was made effective > on 18 April 2017. Furthermore, as requested by the GNSO Council, ICANN > is publishing this paper to provide analysis of and solicit community > input on the practicality and feasibility of the triggers, as well as > suggestions for moving forward with the review. Outputs from this > assessment and comment process are expected to inform the next > periodic review of the procedure. > > The Whois Procedure has recently been updated, although no > ICANN-accredited registrar or registry operator to date has formally > invoked the procedure. As a result, this analysis is based solely on > community discussions and input received during the previous > review[gnso.icann.org] > > [PDF, 155 KB], which related to allowing for evaluation of an > additional trigger for invoking the procedure. It also draws upon > ICANN's experience administering other processes where a contracted > party is seeking ICANN's approval for new services, or waiving certain > contractual requirements, as a point of comparison for the > implementation of the procedure. > > > 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] > ./ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri May 5 17:13:31 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 10:13:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <3PR8oiYJ7iG2BxAt4Py9QKwPRamkChzhD4LswjTG2MlV7MlkTHzAe78GGeuGDK9r7fAFB0FlR2hR3x29LnRvgzOJT7xuKPegBwvspXyc2HU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <6931cd45-4056-189e-f13f-52474f4d8b37@mail.utoronto.ca> This sounds like a good plan Ayden. I issued a dissent on this procedure, and will be happy to walk people through the process for this procedure, which the Registrars blocked at the GNSO because they know it won't work. It has been an unusual process.....and there is supposed to be a new process starting in the fall, to come up with something different. Stephanie On 2017-05-05 07:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > I was thinking of both. > > I think a standalone call is important to engage community members > with no background of the topic. I was thinking that Stephanie and I > (and others if interested) could provide the members on the call with > an introduction first to the issues at play, then walk them through > the comment, and ask focused questions to understand what members on > the call think. I cannot see this taking less than 60 minutes; if it > was a part of the PC call, it would dominate it. It would also show > that we are responsive to community concerns, given recent > conversations on the list that we do not engage the membership in our > comments. > > I am happy to update the PC on the policy call as well, but at a > higher-level and only taking 5-10 minutes up of the meeting. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois >> Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available >> for Public Comment >> Local Time: May 5, 2017 12:27 PM >> UTC Time: May 5, 2017 11:27 AM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: Ayden F?rdeline >> ncsg-pc >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> thanks for volunteering. sharing a first draft which can be used as a >> strawman is welcome. >> we can schedule either a standalone call for this topic or put it as >> an agenda item for the next NCSG Policy Call in less than 2 weeks. I >> am in favor of the former option since it gives more time for >> discussion and presentation. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-05 19:04 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline > >: >> >> Thanks for letting us know that this comment has opened, Rafik. I >> am happy to work on a first draft of this public comment over the >> weekend, and get it out to the NCSG list to see what other >> members think. >> >> As there are still five weeks until comments are due, it seems >> like we might have time to schedule a brief call (for the NCSG >> membership) where I or others can walk people through the comment >> and see, on the call, if anyone has any suggested edits. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois >>> Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now >>> Available for Public Comment >>> Local Time: May 5, 2017 10:45 AM >>> UTC Time: May 5, 2017 9:45 AM >>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>> >>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>> > >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have a new public comment open and I am sending this as a >>> call for volunteers who want to take the lead on drafting a >>> NCSG statement. It is a good opportunity for those with strong >>> interest on data protection. >>> >>> I think that Stephanie participated in the group tasked to >>> discuss the Whois conflict with national laws and she can >>> probably share some background here. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>> >>> *From: *ICANN News Alert >> > >>> *Reply-To: *"no-reply at external.icann.org >>> " >>> > >>> *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 01:30 >>> *To: *Marika Konings >> > >>> *Subject: *[Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Revised ICANN Procedure for >>> Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next >>> Steps Now Available for Public Comment >>> >>> >>> CANN[icann.org] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> News Alert >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-03-en[icann.org] >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with >>> Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps Now Available for >>> Public Comment >>> >>> 3 May 2017 >>> >>> LOS ANGELES ? 3 May 2017 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned >>> Names and Numbers (ICANN) today published a paper, "Revised >>> ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: >>> Assessment and Next Steps," for public comment. >>> >>> *Read the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts >>> with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org] >>> * >>> [PDF, 159 KB]. >>> >>> This paper is available for public comment through 12 June 2017. >>> Feedback will be incorporated into a report of public comments >>> and provided to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) >>> Council for their review and consideration. >>> >>> *Comment on the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois >>> Conflicts with Privacy Law: Assessment and Next Steps[icann.org] >>> *. >>> >>> In accordance with the ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois >>> Conflicts with Privacy Law (Whois Procedure)[icann.org] >>> , >>> this paper opens a review process to gather community input on >>> the effectiveness of the revised Whois Procedure, which was made >>> effective on 18 April 2017. Furthermore, as requested by the >>> GNSO Council, ICANN is publishing this paper to provide analysis >>> of and solicit community input on the practicality and >>> feasibility of the triggers, as well as suggestions for moving >>> forward with the review. Outputs from this assessment and >>> comment process are expected to inform the next periodic review >>> of the procedure. >>> >>> The Whois Procedure has recently been updated, although no >>> ICANN-accredited registrar or registry operator to date has >>> formally invoked the procedure. As a result, this analysis is >>> based solely on community discussions and input received during >>> the previous review[gnso.icann.org] >>> >>> [PDF, 155 KB], which related to allowing for evaluation of an >>> additional trigger for invoking the procedure. It also draws >>> upon ICANN's experience administering other processes where a >>> contracted party is seeking ICANN's approval for new services, >>> or waiving certain contractual requirements, as a point of >>> comparison for the implementation of the procedure. >>> >>> >>> 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] >>> ./ >>> >>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From digitalfarm at xplornet.com Sat May 6 00:57:44 2017 From: digitalfarm at xplornet.com (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 17:57:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG - Invitation to edit In-Reply-To: References: <3f72953d-8dca-4112-8567-375355a4cc68@docs-share.google.com> Message-ID: <4393c502-fab6-981d-94a5-16e59be58d50@xplornet.com> I have things to add, sorry am swamped at the moment but we have a bit of time. Stephanie On 2017-05-03 19:08, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Poncelet, > > Thanks, better to resend the link to NCSG as reminder for members to > review and add comments. > We still need discussion at PC list to review and endorse the > statement before submitting it. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > On May 3, 2017 10:45 PM, "Poncelet Ileleji" > wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Please as the deadline for the CCT RT was extended to the 19th of > May 2019, I was wondering if any one else had stuff to add, before > I send of the text > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit?usp=sharing_eil&invite=CPecwecO&ts=58f9e6d5 > > > Will be grateful to know. > > Thanks > > Poncelet > > On 25 April 2017 at 17:08, Poncelet Ileleji > wrote: > > Thanks Rafik, > > Definitely good idea. > > Poncelet > > On 25 April 2017 at 08:56, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > please review the comment shared by Poncelet, the deadline > for submission was extended to the 19th May > so we have an opportunity to expand our comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > 2017-04-21 20:02 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji (via Google > Docs) via NCSG-PC >: > > Poncelet Ileleji has invited > you to *edit* the following document: > CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG > > Sender's profile photoDear Colleagues, > Please review initial draft, make comments and > revision of text as applicable; before I send it off > on Tuesday latest. Lucas made some suggestions > already, and Rafik has suggestd we get Carlos > involved. Thanks > > Open in Docs > > This email grants access to this item. Only forward it > to people you trust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. > Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, > CA 94043, USA > You have received this email because someone shared a > document with you from Google Docs. Logo for Google > Docs > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > * > * > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > * > * > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Mon May 8 07:53:35 2017 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 01:53:35 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would agree with you that 22% is not a bad response rate given the complexity of the questionnaire and in fact the pathbreaking nature of the exercise. However it does impact the ability to draw conclusions from the analysis of the questionnaire responses. Also as the authors of the report say themselves they realised after the fact that they could have shortened the questionnaire. I think that if they create the country profiles and these reflect where data was not available due to non-response maybe that will encourage an improved response rate for future exercises. best On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thank you so much for taking the lead here, Dorothy, and drafting this > comment. > > I am wondering, is a 22% response rate really considered low? Considering > the length of the survey (200+ questions), limited languages (it was not > translated into local ones), the specialised level of knowledge required to > respond to the questions, and the medium through which it was distributed > (online only, circulated via email) I am thinking hearing back from 22% of > the 1,400 people/organisations sent the questionnaire perhaps it isn't too > bad. Maybe we should ask, are the responses that came in broadly > representative of everyone polled? If not - and, full disclosure, I haven't > looked at the data so I don't know if this is the case - maybe we should > draw attention to that. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for > comments > Local Time: May 5, 2017 10:40 AM > UTC Time: May 5, 2017 9:40 AM > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > ncsg-pc > > Hi all, > > Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/docu > ment/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the > African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public- > comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) > > While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the > ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and > asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those > from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. > We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee > endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. > It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits by > Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > =================================================== > > Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study > > (ADNSMS) > > The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African > Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South > Africa Communications Forum. > > Methodology > > This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain Name > Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered > analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor > response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the > length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for > the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, > regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey > questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was > developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. > > Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other > criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of > the criteria used in the DNS success index. > > 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and > lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration > of the (ADNSMS) > > > Section 5 - Africa Rising > > Comment: > > > 1. > > In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be > useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in > comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages > 85 & 86. > > > 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other sources > and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the main > report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use > of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their > originality. > > Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market > > Comment: > > > 1. > > This section provides useful background information but it could > benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These > include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the > African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific > cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would > increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second > instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does > not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the > advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in > uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced > valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a > review. > > > > 1. > > The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best > features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for > each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to > appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to > be tracked in each context. > > > Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region > > (see prior comment on methodology) > > Comment: > > > 1. > > Please see above request for country profiles for all countries > > > > 1. > > The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be > repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. > > > Section 8 Key success factors registries > > Section 9 - Growth Outlook > > The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to > the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. > It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this > linked to key factors at the country context. > > The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the > study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the > deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but > these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific > starting points. > > > ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and > weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop > recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the > opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. > > Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes > to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these > issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 8 07:58:13 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:58:13 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Drafting/Documenting NCSG Policy Committee Procedures Message-ID: hi all, by the previous discussion we are having lately with regard to board seat election, SSC appointment, comments endorsement, involving and engaging NCSG membership, I would like to propose that we kick-off a discussion on Policy Committee procedures, processes, working methods, and guidelines. We can start by listing some items to cover first and work with NCSG EC for reviewing them and consulting NCSG membership after agreeing on a tentative timeline to get this done. Getting those procedures are overdue and will definitely help us for our work and it is one of the provision of NCSG charter to be filled. Some ideas for starters: - Drafting and approving NCSG Statements - Council Motions (engage with members and other councilors on how one intends to vote with rationale) - Appointments and selection process for NCSG representative - Decision making - Board Seat #14 selection process (as internal process) - GNSO Council Chair and Vice Chair selection process (as internal process) - NCSG PC Chair and Vice Chair selection process I am volunteering to start drafting a strawman and sharing that with the policy committee but I am looking for others to join the effort and volunteer too. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Mon May 8 17:25:34 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:25:34 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes In-Reply-To: <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> Message-ID: <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> Thanks all for the comments. Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process for changing the fundamental bylaws * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms What other points could be added? Thanks. Matthew On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: > We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial for those processes. > > I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed only with due community process. > > While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). > > David > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental bylaws to >> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >> >> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >> >> avri >> >> >> >>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Matt >>> >>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is >>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the handler >>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration >>> Requests.?) >>> >>> >>> >>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with >>> without community approval. >>> >>> >>> >>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee to >>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>> >>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in the >>> bylaws. >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>> >>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>> >>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>> >>> Internet Governance Project >>> >>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have >>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new >>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but would >>> love to hear otherwise. >>> >>> Looking forward to your comments. >>> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Mon May 8 20:13:29 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:13:29 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes In-Reply-To: <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> observer view: sounds good not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for doing it? but it seems ok to include it. avri On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Thanks all for the comments. > > Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a > submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). > > If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: > > * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability > Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) > * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process > for changing the fundamental bylaws > * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial > way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms > > What other points could be added? > > Thanks. > > Matthew > > > > > On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial for those processes. >> >> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed only with due community process. >> >> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >> >> David >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental bylaws to >>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>> >>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, Matt >>>> >>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is >>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the handler >>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration >>>> Requests.?) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with >>>> without community approval. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee to >>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>> >>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in the >>>> bylaws. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>> >>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>> >>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>> >>>> Internet Governance Project >>>> >>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have >>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new >>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but would >>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com >> > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue May 9 04:42:47 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 22:42:47 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Report for the NCSG of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017 Message-ID: <89307BE5-3BF1-47C4-8534-945A73971BF4@gmail.com> Hello all, Here I share a report of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017. Is based on my notes of the meeting, the recordings and action items distributed by ICANN Staff (which came in very late). Feel free to correct or add any comment or to distribute the report accordingly to the PC best practice. Cheers, Mart?n Silva -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Report for the NCSG of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 152788 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 9 07:52:33 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 13:52:33 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Report for the NCSG of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017 In-Reply-To: <89307BE5-3BF1-47C4-8534-945A73971BF4@gmail.com> References: <89307BE5-3BF1-47C4-8534-945A73971BF4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Martin, Thanks for the draft and sharing it, can you please correct my family name there, it is "Dammak" :). I was also present in the call while I gave Stephanie my proxy vote since I was commuting. I think the format is fine and waiting for others to review before sending it. for follow-up, we can discuss on how and what we should present in the report regarding the council discussion. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 10:42 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>: > Hello all, > Here I share a report of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017. > Is based on my notes of the meeting, the recordings and action items > distributed by ICANN Staff (which came in very late). Feel free to correct > or add any comment or to distribute the report accordingly to the PC best > practice. > > Cheers, > Mart?n Silva > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Tue May 9 11:39:40 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 09:39:40 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes In-Reply-To: <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our submission. Please edit in the doc. https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. Matthew On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: > observer view: sounds good > > not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this > through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for > doing it? but it seems ok to include it. > > avri > > > > On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >> Thanks all for the comments. >> >> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a >> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). >> >> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: >> >> * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability >> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >> * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process >> for changing the fundamental bylaws >> * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial >> way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms >> >> What other points could be added? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> >> >> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial for those processes. >>> >>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed only with due community process. >>> >>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >>> >>> David >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>>> >>>> hi, >>>> >>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental bylaws to >>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>>> >>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, Matt >>>>> >>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is >>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the handler >>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration >>>>> Requests.?) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with >>>>> without community approval. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee to >>>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>>> >>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in the >>>>> bylaws. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>> >>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>> >>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>> >>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>> >>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have >>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new >>>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but would >>>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>>> >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> http://www.avg.com >>> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears From pileleji at ymca.gm Tue May 9 12:22:53 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 09:22:53 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Standing Selection Committee Selection of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration Message-ID: Dear NCSG PC Colleagues, Good Morning the SSC shall be meeting between the 15th of May to 25th May on various days to look into the *?Selection of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration (ECA)?.* *Responsibilities for the ECA are as follows:-* >From a GNSO perspective the representative is primarily a conduit for communicating GNSO Council decisions to the EC Administration. As a general matter, the EC Administration is responsible for the following tasks: ? Receives and sends notifications ? Moderates conference calls and community forums ? Tallies decisions of Decisional Participants ? Mediation o Appoints representatives to represent the Empowered Community in mediation o Selects slate of 5 potential mediators from Mediation Admin and ? Board Mediation Representatives Please any suggestions, you might intend to give me and Renata to look out for during this process of the SSC is welcomed. Kind Regards Poncelet -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Tue May 9 12:36:50 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:36:50 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> Message-ID: <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Hi Would be good if I included the right link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing Thanks to Ayden for noticing. Matthew On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: > Hi all > > Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our > submission. > > Please edit in the doc. > > https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing > > > Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. > > Matthew > > > On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: >> observer view: sounds good >> >> not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this >> through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for >> doing it? but it seems ok to include it. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> Thanks all for the comments. >>> >>> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a >>> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). >>> >>> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: >>> >>> * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability >>> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >>> * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process >>> for changing the fundamental bylaws >>> * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial >>> way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms >>> >>> What other points could be added? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >>>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental >>>> bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do >>>> so - and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a >>>> good trial for those processes. >>>> >>>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not >>>> only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability >>>> mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are >>>> changed only with due community process. >>>> >>>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board >>>> internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning >>>> behind taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, >>>> in practice the current wording is a very simple and easy to >>>> understand change, and wording that removed mention of a specific >>>> committee would be more complex and potentially more ambiguous. If >>>> a committee was created specifically for dealing with >>>> Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes would be >>>> necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the >>>> future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental >>>>> bylaws to >>>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>>>> >>>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, Matt >>>>>> >>>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is >>>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the >>>>>> handler >>>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration >>>>>> Requests.?) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with >>>>>> without community approval. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new >>>>>> ?Committee to >>>>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things >>>>>> in the >>>>>> bylaws. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>> >>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>> >>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to >>>>>> have >>>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new >>>>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but >>>>>> would >>>>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>> http://www.avg.com >>>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shears >>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears From wjdrake at gmail.com Tue May 9 14:43:20 2017 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 07:43:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Report for the NCSG of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <89307BE5-3BF1-47C4-8534-945A73971BF4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Great to see reporting from Council meetings, thanks Martin Bill > On May 9, 2017, at 00:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for the draft and sharing it, > can you please correct my family name there, it is "Dammak" :). I was also present in the call while I gave Stephanie my proxy vote since I was commuting. > I think the format is fine and waiting for others to review before sending it. for follow-up, we can discuss on how and what we should present in the report regarding the council discussion. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-09 10:42 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent >: > Hello all, > Here I share a report of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017. Is based on my notes of the meeting, the recordings and action items distributed by ICANN Staff (which came in very late). Feel free to correct or add any comment or to distribute the report accordingly to the PC best practice. > > Cheers, > Mart?n Silva > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 9 16:57:45 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 22:57:45 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi Matt, thanks for the amendments, we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > Hi > > Would be good if I included the right link: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscu > F77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing > > Thanks to Ayden for noticing. > > Matthew > > > On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our >> submission. >> >> Please edit in the doc. >> >> https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaIL >> gBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: >> >>> observer view: sounds good >>> >>> not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this >>> through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for >>> doing it? but it seems ok to include it. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks all for the comments. >>>> >>>> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a >>>> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). >>>> >>>> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: >>>> >>>> * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability >>>> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >>>> * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process >>>> for changing the fundamental bylaws >>>> * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial >>>> way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms >>>> >>>> What other points could be added? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >>>> >>>>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental >>>>> bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - >>>>> and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial >>>>> for those processes. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not only >>>>> is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability mechanisms, and >>>>> we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed only with due >>>>> community process. >>>>> >>>>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board internal >>>>> processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind taking >>>>> mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the >>>>> current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording >>>>> that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and >>>>> potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for >>>>> dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes >>>>> would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the >>>>> future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental bylaws >>>>>> to >>>>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>>>>> >>>>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, Matt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is >>>>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>>>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>>>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the >>>>>>> handler >>>>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>>>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration >>>>>>> Requests.?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>>>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with >>>>>>> without community approval. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>>>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee to >>>>>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>>>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> bylaws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have >>>>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new >>>>>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shears >>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>> +447712472987 >>>> Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue May 9 17:23:10 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 10:23:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: It looks good to me. I am holding off on endorsement for now to see if Milton or someone else has any feedback first, as a few days ago there were some concerns. Should we send the comment to the main Discuss list to see if there are any last-minute comments? If none are raised I am happy to support the submission of this comment. A huge thanks to Matthew and James for drafting it. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link Local Time: May 9, 2017 2:57 PM UTC Time: May 9, 2017 1:57 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Matthew Shears ncsg-pc Hi Matt, thanks for the amendments, we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Hi Would be good if I included the right link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing Thanks to Ayden for noticing. Matthew On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: Hi all Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our submission. Please edit in the doc. https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. Matthew On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: observer view: sounds good not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for doing it? but it seems ok to include it. avri On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: Thanks all for the comments. Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process for changing the fundamental bylaws * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms What other points could be added? Thanks. Matthew On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial for those processes. I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed only with due community process. While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). David Sent from my iPad On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: hi, Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental bylaws to take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. avri On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Hi, Matt There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the handler of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration Requests.?) Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with without community approval. So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee to organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in the bylaws. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/ One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but would love to hear otherwise. Looking forward to your comments. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:%2B447712472987) Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:%2B447712472987) Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Tue May 9 17:36:33 2017 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:36:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi My 1 cent from the balcony: > On May 9, 2017, at 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Should we send the comment to the main Discuss list to see if there are any last-minute comments? In light of recent discussions, this would seem to be a good habit to get into. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Tue May 9 17:38:27 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 17:38:27 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: <20170509143827.t3ct47rzm5dxwfes@tarvainen.info> +1 On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 10:36:33AM -0400, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi > > My 1 cent from the balcony: > > > On May 9, 2017, at 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > > > Should we send the comment to the main Discuss list to see if there are any last-minute comments? > > In light of recent discussions, this would seem to be a good habit to get into. > > Bill > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Tapani Tarvainen From avri at doria.org Tue May 9 17:39:23 2017 From: avri at doria.org (avri@acm.org) Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 10:39:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link Message-ID: Hi, Not only that, seems the right thing to do. Avri Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message --------From: William Drake Date: 5/9/17 10:36 (GMT-05:00) To: Ayden F?rdeline Cc: ncsg-pc Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link Hi My 1 cent from the balcony: On May 9, 2017, at 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Should we send the comment to the main Discuss list to see if there are any last-minute comments? In light of recent discussions, this would seem to be a good habit to get into. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 9 17:40:43 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 23:40:43 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Already sent to ncsg list the latest version. Rafik On May 9, 2017 11:23 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: It looks good to me. I am holding off on endorsement for now to see if Milton or someone else has any feedback first, as a few days ago there were some concerns. Should we send the comment to the main Discuss list to see if there are any last-minute comments? If none are raised I am happy to support the submission of this comment. A huge thanks to Matthew and James for drafting it. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link Local Time: May 9, 2017 2:57 PM UTC Time: May 9, 2017 1:57 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Matthew Shears ncsg-pc Hi Matt, thanks for the amendments, we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > Hi > > Would be good if I included the right link: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscu > F77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing > > Thanks to Ayden for noticing. > > Matthew > > > On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Hi all >> >> Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our >> submission. >> >> Please edit in the doc. >> >> https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaIL >> gBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: >> >> observer view: sounds good >>> >>> not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this >>> through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for >>> doing it? but it seems ok to include it. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> >>> Thanks all for the comments. >>>> >>>> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a >>>> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). >>>> >>>> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: >>>> >>>> * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability >>>> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >>>> * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process >>>> for changing the fundamental bylaws >>>> * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial >>>> way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms >>>> >>>> What other points could be added? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >>>> >>>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental >>>>> bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - >>>>> and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial >>>>> for those processes. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not only >>>>> is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability mechanisms, and >>>>> we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed only with due >>>>> community process. >>>>> >>>>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board internal >>>>> processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind taking >>>>> mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the >>>>> current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording >>>>> that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and >>>>> potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for >>>>> dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes >>>>> would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the >>>>> future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental bylaws >>>>>> to >>>>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>>>>> >>>>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, Matt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is >>>>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>>>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>>>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the >>>>>>> handler >>>>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>>>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration >>>>>>> Requests.?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>>>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with >>>>>>> without community approval. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>>>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee to >>>>>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>>>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> bylaws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have >>>>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new >>>>>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shears >>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>> +447712472987 >>>> Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue May 9 20:51:33 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 14:51:33 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: <20170509143934.B0D5181F7@posti.effi.org> References: <20170509143934.B0D5181F7@posti.effi.org> Message-ID: <0756FC48-4DA4-4FB6-8314-A58564E10ED9@gmail.com> +1 as well! > On May 9, 2017, at 11:39 AM, avri at acm.org wrote: > > Hi, > > Not only that, seems the right thing to do. > > Avri > > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Drake > Date: 5/9/17 10:36 (GMT-05:00) > To: Ayden F?rdeline > Cc: ncsg-pc > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link > > Hi > > My 1 cent from the balcony: > >> On May 9, 2017, at 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >> >> Should we send the comment to the main Discuss list to see if there are any last-minute comments? > > In light of recent discussions, this would seem to be a good habit to get into. > > Bill > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Tue May 9 21:33:48 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 14:33:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link Message-ID: Hi, Thanks to those who have worked on this comment. The revisions have addressed my principle concerns and if folks want to go forward with this I'm happy to endorse. That said, I do believe the Board should have waited until all of the new accountability mechanisms were operational before proposing any changes to how they processed them. A look at the number of reconsideration requests filed yields the following data: 2013 -23 requests 2014- 46 requests 2015- 15 requests 2016- 14 requests 2017 (4 months) - 1 request In the 6 months since the new Bylaws went into effect there have been 2 reconsideration requests. Although I'm not sure the change is needed, and personally believe that the way the accountability mechanisms are designed reconsideration will be a sadly underutilized mechanism going forward, I do think the community should give the Board great leeway in designing its operations. If the Board wants to do things this way, I see no major negative impact to the community going forward so we should allow it to proceed. Indeed, given the poor success rate for complainants under the current rules, changing committee composition and structure can only help. Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Tue May 9 22:23:06 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 20:23:06 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <757e1598-4435-dba3-0d98-35ccffee9676@intpolicy.com> Thanks Ed. On 09/05/2017 19:33, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi, > Thanks to those who have worked on this comment. The revisions have > addressed my principle concerns and if folks want to go forward with > this I'm happy to endorse. > That said, I do believe the Board should have waited until all of the > new accountability mechanisms were operational before proposing any > changes to how they processed them. That's an interesting point. I wonder if there is a tally anywhere of all the new accountability mechanisms. > A look at the number of reconsideration requests filed yields the > following data: > 2013 -23 requests > 2014- 46 requests > 2015- 15 requests > 2016- 14 requests > 2017 (4 months) - 1 request > In the 6 months since the new Bylaws went into effect there have been > 2 reconsideration requests. > Although I'm not sure the change is needed, and personally believe > that the way the accountability mechanisms are designed > reconsideration will be a sadly underutilized mechanism going forward, Like to understand that more - maybe in Joburg? > I do think the community should give the Board great leeway in > designing its operations. If the Board wants to do things this way, I > see no major negative impact to the community going forward so we > should allow it to proceed. Indeed, given the poor success rate for > complainants under the current rules, changing committee composition > and structure can only help. Agree. Thanks. > Ed > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed May 10 01:01:26 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 18:01:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: <0756FC48-4DA4-4FB6-8314-A58564E10ED9@gmail.com> References: <20170509143934.B0D5181F7@posti.effi.org> <0756FC48-4DA4-4FB6-8314-A58564E10ED9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <40d14de1-7e68-913f-e79a-39c209eae198@mail.utoronto.ca> +1 from me too! Stephanie On 2017-05-09 13:51, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > +1 as well! > >> On May 9, 2017, at 11:39 AM, avri at acm.org >> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Not only that, seems the right thing to do. >> >> Avri >> >> >> >> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: William Drake > >> Date: 5/9/17 10:36 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Ayden F?rdeline > >> Cc: ncsg-pc > >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link >> >> Hi >> >> My 1 cent from the balcony: >> >>> On May 9, 2017, at 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline >> > wrote: >>> >>> Should we send the comment to the main Discuss list to see if there >>> are any last-minute comments? >> >> In light of recent discussions, this would seem to be a good habit to >> get into. >> >> Bill >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed May 10 04:04:15 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 22:04:15 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Report for the NCSG of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <89307BE5-3BF1-47C4-8534-945A73971BF4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77ED6B04-7CAE-4EA5-B188-4BEEC8BEE4D3@gmail.com> There goes the version with Rafik last name correct and clarification. For what is worth to the further comments on the format: In this case I took notes over the Agenda and used the agenda structure not to miss any point, I listened to the recording to see if there was anything major missing and tried no to duplicate information that would be already in the links, like the motions, summarizing the motion would probably only end up in mistakes since the motion writings are very specific. I also waited until the Secretariat sent the action points, so the Report would be up-to-date for the next meeting ahead. Then I just added all the relevant links for someone to reconstruct the meeting and prepare for the next one. Cheers, Mart?n > On May 9, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for the draft and sharing it, > can you please correct my family name there, it is "Dammak" :). I was also present in the call while I gave Stephanie my proxy vote since I was commuting. > I think the format is fine and waiting for others to review before sending it. for follow-up, we can discuss on how and what we should present in the report regarding the council discussion. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-09 10:42 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent >: > Hello all, > Here I share a report of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017. Is based on my notes of the meeting, the recordings and action items distributed by ICANN Staff (which came in very late). Feel free to correct or add any comment or to distribute the report accordingly to the PC best practice. > > Cheers, > Mart?n Silva > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Report for the NCSG of the GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 20th April 2017.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 155024 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 10 07:03:13 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 13:03:13 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: hi all, this a reminder to get the votes/endorsement for the statement. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 22:57 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Matt, > > thanks for the amendments, > we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members > share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > >> Hi >> >> Would be good if I included the right link: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscu >> F77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Thanks to Ayden for noticing. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our >>> submission. >>> >>> Please edit in the doc. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaIL >>> gBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: >>> >>>> observer view: sounds good >>>> >>>> not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this >>>> through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for >>>> doing it? but it seems ok to include it. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks all for the comments. >>>>> >>>>> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a >>>>> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). >>>>> >>>>> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: >>>>> >>>>> * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability >>>>> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >>>>> * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process >>>>> for changing the fundamental bylaws >>>>> * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial >>>>> way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms >>>>> >>>>> What other points could be added? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental >>>>>> bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - >>>>>> and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial >>>>>> for those processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not only >>>>>> is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability mechanisms, and >>>>>> we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed only with due >>>>>> community process. >>>>>> >>>>>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board internal >>>>>> processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind taking >>>>>> mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the >>>>>> current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording >>>>>> that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and >>>>>> potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for >>>>>> dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes >>>>>> would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the >>>>>> future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental bylaws >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, Matt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is >>>>>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>>>>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>>>>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the >>>>>>>> handler >>>>>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>>>>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration >>>>>>>> Requests.?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>>>>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with >>>>>>>> without community approval. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>>>>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>>>>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>>>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> bylaws. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new >>>>>>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>> +447712472987 >>>>> Skype:mshears >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 10 07:11:43 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 13:11:43 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Standing Selection Committee Selection of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Poncelet, thanks for sharing the info. what is the SSC plan for this e.g. timeline, call for candidates, selection criteria? I understand that GNSO council tasked the SSC and waiting for a result by June. I guess the staff background document is good for starting the work. in term of responsibilities in EC admin, I think those who were involved in ws1 may give more insight into the expectations of such role and what kind of candidates is desired for such responsibility, for example, should he been involved in ws1 deliberations or not etc. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 18:22 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : > Dear NCSG PC Colleagues, > > > > Good Morning the SSC shall be meeting between the 15th of May to 25th May > on various days to look into the *?Selection of GNSO Representative to > the Empowered Community Administration (ECA)?.* > > > > > > *Responsibilities for the ECA are as follows:-* > > From a GNSO perspective the representative is primarily a conduit for > communicating GNSO Council decisions to the EC Administration. As a general > matter, the EC Administration is responsible for the following tasks: > > ? Receives and sends notifications > > ? Moderates conference calls and community forums > > ? Tallies decisions of Decisional Participants > > ? Mediation > > o Appoints representatives to represent the Empowered Community in > mediation > > o Selects slate of 5 potential mediators from Mediation Admin and > > ? Board Mediation Representatives > > > > Please any suggestions, you might intend to give me and Renata to look out > for during this process of the SSC is welcomed. > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Poncelet > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 10 08:01:16 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 14:01:16 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement Message-ID: Hi all, we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit) and I am really happy to see several fellow Africans participate in the review. I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of NCSG comment after the deadline and by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to review the draft for endorsement or not in order to submit it by this Friday. Thanks. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" Cc: ncsg-pc Hi all, Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/docu ment/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public- comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. Best, Rafik =================================================== Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study (ADNSMS) The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South Africa Communications Forum. Methodology This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain Name Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of the criteria used in the DNS success index. 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration of the (ADNSMS) Section 5 - Africa Rising Comment: 1. In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages 85 & 86. 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the main report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their originality. Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market Comment: 1. This section provides useful background information but it could benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a review. 1. The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to be tracked in each context. Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region (see prior comment on methodology) Comment: 1. Please see above request for country profiles for all countries 1. The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. Section 8 Key success factors registries Section 9 - Growth Outlook The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this linked to key factors at the country context. The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific starting points. ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Wed May 10 14:08:41 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 07:08:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Standing Selection Committee Selection of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration Message-ID: <28c7639326904e55b355255cad1ec5d4@toast.net> Hi Rafik and Poncelet, One initial note: This is the first SSC selection that does not involve a Review Team pick. As such, the rotation principle does not apply (assuming it still exists; the last selection left some doubt). This is an important pick for the NCSG from a number of perspectives. The GNSO rep to the Empowered Community formally is mostly an administrative position in that the principle responsibility of the rep is to notify the ECA of GNSO decisions (which, in most cases, are made by Council). It is an important leadership role though: the ECA Rep is the face and reality of the GNSO to the greater ICANN community. The NCSG, usually alongside our Contracted Party House (CPH) colleagues, has fought repeatedly to place the exercise of powers created by the transition in Council under the current House structure. We have been fought on this at every opportunity by the Commercial Stakeholders Group. To date, we have beaten them every time. Under the conception of GNSO powers traditionally favoured by the NCSG, the GNSO representative to the Empowered Community would be the GNSO Chair. That certainly was the operating assumption of the DT when we set thresholds and discussed this position. It wouldn't surprise me if the CSG pushed for someone else. This objectively would not be wise. No one is better placed than the Council Chair to relay to third parties the decisions of the GNSO Council. My fear, and I believe the CSG hope if they do propose appointing someone else, is that if we agreed to another candidate that individual would become a competing "face" of the GNSO to the rest of the ICANN community, which is one of the reasons we pushed so hard (along with securing NCSG influence) for placing most of the new powers in Council. The last thing we want to do is send competing messages about who speaks for the GNSO. I will also note that GNSO Council Chair James Bladel has been serving as our temporary rep to the ECA while we have been racing up the SSC regime and working on the DT. In my view the only candidate that fits with all that the NCSG has fought for in placing the new powers in Council is Council Chair James Bladel. If James won't do it either of the Council Vice Chairs would be the next logical picks. Selecting someone else could be seen as the first chip towards nullifying our placement of final EC decisions within Council itself and, indeed, the first step towards dismantling the current GNSO power structure by creating competing centres of authority before the 2019 GNSO Review. Kind Regards, Ed --- Hi Poncelet, thanks for sharing the info. what is the SSC plan for this e.g. timeline, call for candidates, selection criteria? I understand that GNSO council tasked the SSC and waiting for a result by June. I guess the staff background document is good for starting the work. in term of responsibilities in EC admin, I think those who were involved in ws1 may give more insight into the expectations of such role and what kind of candidates is desired for such responsibility, for example, should he been involved in ws1 deliberations or not etc. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 18:22 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : > Dear NCSG PC Colleagues, > > > > Good Morning the SSC shall be meeting between the 15th of May to 25th May > on various days to look into the *?Selection of GNSO Representative to > the Empowered Community Administration (ECA)?.* > > > > > > *Responsibilities for the ECA are as follows:-* > > From a GNSO perspective the representative is primarily a conduit for > communicating GNSO Council decisions to the EC Administration. As a general > matter, the EC Administration is responsible for the following tasks: > > ? Receives and sends notifications > > ? Moderates conference calls and community forums > > ? Tallies decisions of Decisional Participants > > ? Mediation > > o Appoints representatives to represent the Empowered Community in > mediation > > o Selects slate of 5 potential mediators from Mediation Admin and > > ? Board Mediation Representatives > > > > Please any suggestions, you might intend to give me and Renata to look out > for during this process of the SSC is welcomed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 10 15:44:52 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:44:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <7a9e1464-63d3-1bec-4eb8-91309e16aea9@intpolicy.com> <3b9a7588-02d4-fb5a-ad5b-edde9bb200e4@apc.org> <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi all, the deadline for submission is less than 12 hours. if there is no objection by then, I think we can submit the comment. please respond asap. Best, Rafik 2017-05-10 13:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > hi all, > > this a reminder to get the votes/endorsement for the statement. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2017-05-09 22:57 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi Matt, >> >> thanks for the amendments, >> we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members >> share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >> >>> Hi >>> >>> Would be good if I included the right link: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscu >>> F77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Thanks to Ayden for noticing. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our >>>> submission. >>>> >>>> Please edit in the doc. >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaIL >>>> gBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> observer view: sounds good >>>>> >>>>> not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this >>>>> through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for >>>>> doing it? but it seems ok to include it. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks all for the comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a >>>>>> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). >>>>>> >>>>>> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability >>>>>> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >>>>>> * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process >>>>>> for changing the fundamental bylaws >>>>>> * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial >>>>>> way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms >>>>>> >>>>>> What other points could be added? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthew >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental >>>>>>> bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - >>>>>>> and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial >>>>>>> for those processes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not >>>>>>> only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability >>>>>>> mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed >>>>>>> only with due community process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board >>>>>>> internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind >>>>>>> taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the >>>>>>> current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording >>>>>>> that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and >>>>>>> potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for >>>>>>> dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes >>>>>>> would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the >>>>>>> future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental >>>>>>>> bylaws to >>>>>>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, Matt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>>>>>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>>>>>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the >>>>>>>>> handler >>>>>>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>>>>>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such >>>>>>>>> Reconsideration >>>>>>>>> Requests.?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>>>>>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with >>>>>>>>> without community approval. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>>>>>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>>>>>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>>>>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> bylaws. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new >>>>>>>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>>> +447712472987 >>>>>> Skype:mshears >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shears >>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 10 16:01:23 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:01:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. Noting that there has been no opposition expressed on the main Discuss list, I support the submission of this comment and extend my thanks to James and Matthew for drafting it. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link Local Time: May 10, 2017 1:44 PM UTC Time: May 10, 2017 12:44 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Matthew Shears ncsg-pc Hi all, the deadline for submission is less than 12 hours. if there is no objection by then, I think we can submit the comment. please respond asap. Best, Rafik 2017-05-10 13:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : hi all, this a reminder to get the votes/endorsement for the statement. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 22:57 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Hi Matt, thanks for the amendments, we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement. Best, Rafik 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Hi Would be good if I included the right link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing Thanks to Ayden for noticing. Matthew On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: Hi all Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our submission. Please edit in the doc. https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. Matthew On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: observer view: sounds good not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for doing it? but it seems ok to include it. avri On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: Thanks all for the comments. Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process for changing the fundamental bylaws * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms What other points could be added? Thanks. Matthew On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial for those processes. I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed only with due community process. While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). David Sent from my iPad On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: hi, Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental bylaws to take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. avri On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Hi, Matt There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem is not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the handler of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board Governance Committee to review and consider any such Reconsideration Requests.?) Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing with without community approval. So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new ?Committee to organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things in the bylaws. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/ One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to have a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a new committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but would love to hear otherwise. Looking forward to your comments. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:%2B447712472987) Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:%2B447712472987) Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 10 16:30:12 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:30:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet, but it is getting there. I am very grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think we need to be more specific about what we would like done differently next time the study is conducted. I am also not sure that the third point is correct. It was not that 1,400 domains out of 4.1 million were analysed; it was that surveys were sent to 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom were registrants). Even if it was referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample size of 1,400 domains probably is representative. I also am curious about the comment Anriette made on-list about budget; I wonder if it was a case of the external consultants who drafted the report underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a suitable amount for the work but they did not pay the local contractors a suitable amount for their contributions, or something else altogether. I am not sure we need to bring this into our comment but it is interesting to me. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc , dorothy g Hi all, we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit) and I am really happy to see several fellow Africans participate in the review. I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of NCSG comment after the deadline and by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to review the draft for endorsement or not in order to submit it by this Friday. Thanks. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" Cc: ncsg-pc Hi all, Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. Best, Rafik =================================================== [Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) (ADNSMS) The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South Africa Communications Forum. Methodology This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain Name Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of the criteria used in the DNS success index. 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration of the (ADNSMS) Section 5 - Africa Rising Comment: - In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages 85 & 86. 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the main report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their originality. Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market Comment: - This section provides useful background information but it could benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a review. - The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to be tracked in each context. Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region (see prior comment on methodology) Comment: - Please see above request for country profiles for all countries - The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. Section 8 Key success factors registries Section 9 - Growth Outlook The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this linked to key factors at the country context. The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific starting points. ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 10 16:51:50 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 22:51:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks for the comments, 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi, > > I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet, but it is > getting there. I am very grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all > those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think we need to be more > specific about what we would like done differently next time the study is > conducted. > > can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? > I am also not sure that the third point is correct. It was not that 1,400 > domains out of 4.1 million were analysed; it was that surveys were sent to > 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom were registrants). Even if > it was referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample size of 1,400 > domains probably is representative. > > I also am curious about the comment Anriette made on-list about budget; I > wonder if it was a case of the external consultants who drafted the report > underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a suitable amount for the > work but they did not pay the local contractors a suitable amount for their > contributions, or something else altogether. I am not sure we need to bring > this into our comment but it is interesting to me. > > understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the right place for that while we can ask details about the budgeting planned for those studies and which criteria for informational purpose. Best, Rafik > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement > Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM > UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: ncsg-pc , dorothy g > > Hi all, > > we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft ( > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0Dej > NLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit) and I am really happy to see several > fellow Africans participate in the review. > I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of NCSG comment > after the deadline and by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to > review the draft for endorsement or not in order to submit it by this > Friday. > Thanks. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 > Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments > To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" > Cc: ncsg-pc > > > Hi all, > > Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/docu > ment/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the > African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public- > comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) > > While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the > ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and > asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those > from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. > We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee > endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. > It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits by > Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > =================================================== > > Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study > > (ADNSMS) > > The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African > Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South > Africa Communications Forum. > > Methodology > > This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain Name > Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered > analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor > response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the > length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for > the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, > regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey > questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was > developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. > > Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other > criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of > the criteria used in the DNS success index. > > 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and > lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration > of the (ADNSMS) > > > Section 5 - Africa Rising > > Comment: > > > 1. > > In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be > useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in > comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages > 85 & 86. > > > 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other sources > and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the main > report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use > of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their > originality. > > Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market > > Comment: > > > 1. > > This section provides useful background information but it could > benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These > include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the > African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific > cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would > increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second > instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does > not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the > advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in > uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced > valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a > review. > > > > 1. > > The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best > features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for > each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to > appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to > be tracked in each context. > > > Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region > > (see prior comment on methodology) > > Comment: > > > 1. > > Please see above request for country profiles for all countries > > > > 1. > > The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be > repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. > > > Section 8 Key success factors registries > > Section 9 - Growth Outlook > > The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to > the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. > It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this > linked to key factors at the country context. > > The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the > study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the > deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but > these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific > starting points. > > > ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and > weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop > recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the > opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. > > Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes > to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these > issues. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Wed May 10 17:43:18 2017 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 11:43:18 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1. Include country profiles 2. Use global references for determining methodology of analysis 3. Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to get greater buy in of stakeholders especially in response to questionnaires. 4. Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g. Nacent, Mid-range, Mature, I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss and then end up not sending anything because of timing. How much more time are we giving this? Who finalises? best On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for the comments, > > > 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Hi, >> >> I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet, but it is >> getting there. I am very grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all >> those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think we need to be more >> specific about what we would like done differently next time the study is >> conducted. >> >> > can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? > > >> I am also not sure that the third point is correct. It was not that 1,400 >> domains out of 4.1 million were analysed; it was that surveys were sent to >> 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom were registrants). Even if >> it was referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample size of 1,400 >> domains probably is representative. >> >> I also am curious about the comment Anriette made on-list about budget; I >> wonder if it was a case of the external consultants who drafted the report >> underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a suitable amount for the >> work but they did not pay the local contractors a suitable amount for their >> contributions, or something else altogether. I am not sure we need to bring >> this into our comment but it is interesting to me. >> >> > understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the right place for > that while we can ask details about the budgeting planned for those studies > and which criteria for informational purpose. > > Best, > > Rafik > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement >> Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM >> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc , dorothy g >> >> Hi all, >> >> we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft ( >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxb >> xl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit) and I am really happy to see several >> fellow Africans participate in the review. >> I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of NCSG comment >> after the deadline and by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to >> review the draft for endorsement or not in order to submit it by this >> Friday. >> Thanks. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >> Cc: ncsg-pc >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/docu >> ment/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the >> African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public- >> comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) >> >> While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the >> ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and >> asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those >> from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. >> We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee >> endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. >> It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits by >> Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> =================================================== >> >> Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study >> >> (ADNSMS) >> >> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African >> Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South >> Africa Communications Forum. >> >> Methodology >> >> This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain Name >> Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered >> analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor >> response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the >> length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for >> the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, >> regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey >> questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was >> developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. >> >> Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other >> criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of >> the criteria used in the DNS success index. >> >> 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and >> lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration >> of the (ADNSMS) >> >> >> Section 5 - Africa Rising >> >> Comment: >> >> >> 1. >> >> In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be >> useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in >> comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages >> 85 & 86. >> >> >> 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other sources >> and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the main >> report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use >> of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their >> originality. >> >> Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market >> >> Comment: >> >> >> 1. >> >> This section provides useful background information but it could >> benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These >> include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the >> African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific >> cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would >> increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second >> instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does >> not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the >> advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in >> uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced >> valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a >> review. >> >> >> >> 1. >> >> The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best >> features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for >> each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to >> appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to >> be tracked in each context. >> >> >> Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region >> >> (see prior comment on methodology) >> >> Comment: >> >> >> 1. >> >> Please see above request for country profiles for all countries >> >> >> >> 1. >> >> The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be >> repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. >> >> >> Section 8 Key success factors registries >> >> Section 9 - Growth Outlook >> >> The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to >> the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. >> It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this >> linked to key factors at the country context. >> >> The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the >> study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the >> deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but >> these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific >> starting points. >> >> >> ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and >> weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop >> recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the >> opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. >> >> Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes >> to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these >> issues. >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu May 11 04:38:31 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:38:31 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Thanks all, with no objections raised here or at NCSG list and with support from Mathew, Ayden, Ed and myself, I submitted the NCSG comment (attached). Best, Rafik 2017-05-10 22:01 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. Noting that there has been no opposition > expressed on the main Discuss list, I support the submission of this > comment and extend my thanks to James and Matthew for drafting it. > > - Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link > Local Time: May 10, 2017 1:44 PM > UTC Time: May 10, 2017 12:44 PM > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: Matthew Shears > ncsg-pc > > Hi all, > > the deadline for submission is less than 12 hours. if there is no > objection by then, I think we can submit the comment. please respond asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-10 13:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> hi all, >> >> this a reminder to get the votes/endorsement for the statement. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2017-05-09 22:57 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> thanks for the amendments, >>> we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members >>> share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Would be good if I included the right link: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscu >>>> F77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Thanks to Ayden for noticing. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>>> >>>>> Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened our >>>>> submission. >>>>> >>>>> Please edit in the doc. >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaIL >>>>> gBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. >>>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>> observer view: sounds good >>>>>> >>>>>> not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this >>>>>> through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason for >>>>>> doing it? but it seems ok to include it. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks all for the comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make a >>>>>>> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board >>>>>>> Accountability >>>>>>> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >>>>>>> * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process >>>>>>> for changing the fundamental bylaws >>>>>>> * State that the proposed change is a useful and non-controversial >>>>>>> way to engage and trial the associated accountability mechanisms >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What other points could be added? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matthew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental >>>>>>>> bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - >>>>>>>> and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial >>>>>>>> for those processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not >>>>>>>> only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability >>>>>>>> mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed >>>>>>>> only with due community process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board >>>>>>>> internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind >>>>>>>> taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the >>>>>>>> current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording >>>>>>>> that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and >>>>>>>> potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for >>>>>>>> dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes >>>>>>>> would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the >>>>>>>> future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental >>>>>>>>> bylaws to >>>>>>>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Matt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The problem >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>>>>>>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>>>>>>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the >>>>>>>>>> handler >>>>>>>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the Board >>>>>>>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such >>>>>>>>>> Reconsideration >>>>>>>>>> Requests.?) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>>>>>>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> without community approval. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do through >>>>>>>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new >>>>>>>>>> ?Committee to >>>>>>>>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>>>>>>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>>>>>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> bylaws. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a >>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >>>>>>>>> software. >>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>>>> +447712472987 >>>>>>> Skype:mshears >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shears >>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>> +447712472987 >>>> Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSGCommentsBGCChanges.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 86103 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 11 04:43:21 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:43:21 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik! Stephanie On 2017-05-10 21:38, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks all, with no objections raised here or at NCSG list and with > support from Mathew, Ayden, Ed and myself, I submitted the NCSG > comment (attached). > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-10 22:01 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: > > Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. Noting that there has been no > opposition expressed on the main Discuss list, I support the > submission of this comment and extend my thanks to James and > Matthew for drafting it. > > - Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link >> Local Time: May 10, 2017 1:44 PM >> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 12:44 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: Matthew Shears > > >> ncsg-pc > >> >> Hi all, >> >> the deadline for submission is less than 12 hours. if there is no >> objection by then, I think we can submit the comment. please >> respond asap. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-10 13:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> hi all, >> >> this a reminder to get the votes/endorsement for the statement. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2017-05-09 22:57 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> thanks for the amendments, >> we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, >> all PC members share your thoughts and if you endorsing >> or not the statement. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >> >: >> >> Hi >> >> Would be good if I included the right link: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> Thanks to Ayden for noticing. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> Based on the feedback I have substantially >> redrafted and shortened our submission. >> >> Please edit in the doc. >> >> https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: >> >> observer view: sounds good >> >> not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact >> that we are doing this >> through the proper process is good as a test >> but is that a reason for >> doing it? but it seems ok to include it. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >> Thanks all for the comments. >> >> Given the discussion, I am wondering >> whether or not we need to make a >> submission on this (there is only one so >> far - from AFNIC). >> >> If we feel we do, we could in a short >> statement: >> >> * Endorse the proposal for the >> creation of the Board Accountability >> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >> * Recognize the importance of and the >> need to respect the process >> for changing the fundamental bylaws >> * State that the proposed change is a >> useful and non-controversial >> way to engage and trial the >> associated accountability mechanisms >> >> What other points could be added? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> >> >> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >> >> We need to fully respect the process >> for changing the fundamental bylaws. >> I have absolutely no problem with the >> proposed change to do so - and >> actually, I think an uncontroversial >> change like this is a good trial for >> those processes. >> >> I agree with Milton that while change >> is uncontroversial, it not only is it >> a fundamental bylaw, it is part of >> the accountability mechanisms, and we >> should insist that accountability >> mechanisms are changed only with due >> community process. >> >> While I think in general we should >> avoid micromanaging board internal >> processes to this extent, and I >> understand the reasoning behind >> taking mention of a specific board >> committee out of bylaws, in practice >> the current wording is a very simple >> and easy to understand change, and >> wording that removed mention of a >> specific committee would be more >> complex and potentially more >> ambiguous. If a committee was created >> specifically for dealing with >> Accountability processes, it's >> unlikely any future changes would be >> necessary (the board could >> effectively recombine committees in >> the future if it wished without a >> bylaws change IMO). >> >> David >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri >> doria > > wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> Perhaps the problem is that we >> need to change the fundamental >> bylaws to >> take deciding on board committees >> out of the fundamental bylaws. >> >> but in any case, got to do >> something about the bylaws. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, >> Milton L wrote: >> >> Hi, Matt >> >> There is not, and should not >> be, any way around this. The >> problem is >> not that ICANN needs a >> fundamental bylaw change to >> ?create a new >> committee,? it is that >> Article 4 sec 3 of the >> bylaws, which is >> designated as ?fundamental,? >> specifically names the BGC as >> the handler >> of Reconsideration requests. >> (??The Board has designated >> the Board >> Governance Committee to >> review and consider any such >> Reconsideration >> Requests.?) >> >> >> >> Article 4 is also the home of >> a lot of other >> ?Accountability and >> Review? stuff that we >> definitely do not want the >> board messing with >> without community approval. >> >> >> >> So the board needs approval >> for this and should have to >> do through >> this exercise. But if the >> board decides to create a new >> ?Committee to >> organize birthday >> celebrations? or a ?Committee >> to Honor Snapping >> Turtles? I don?t think there >> would be any problem. >> >> And going forward, I guess >> ICANN legal and the rest of >> us will be >> mindful of future flexibility >> when deciding where to put >> things in the >> bylaws. >> >> >> >> Dr. Milton L Mueller >> >> Professor, School of Public >> Policy >> >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> >> Internet Governance Project >> >> http://internetgovernance.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> One issue that has been >> raised is that it seems silly >> to have to have >> a fundamental bylaw change >> for the Board to be able to >> create a new >> committee. It is not clear >> that there is anyway around >> this but would >> love to hear otherwise. >> >> Looking forward to your comments. >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for >> viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for >> viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu May 11 04:45:46 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:45:46 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dorothy, are you proposing those changes below to be included in the document as a response to Ayden? the document to be tidied-up and need someone to go through at least checking format and proofreading. for submission, my suggestion was to do it by Friday so we should finalize review and endorsement by then. definitely, we shouldn't miss that extended deadline Best, Rafik 2017-05-10 23:43 GMT+09:00 dorothy g : > 1. Include country profiles > > 2. Use global references for determining methodology of analysis > > 3. Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to get greater buy in > of stakeholders especially in response to questionnaires. > > 4. Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g. Nacent, Mid-range, > Mature, > > > I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss and then end up not > sending anything because of timing. How much more time are we giving > this? Who finalises? > best > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks for the comments, >> >> >> 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet, but it is >>> getting there. I am very grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all >>> those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think we need to be more >>> specific about what we would like done differently next time the study is >>> conducted. >>> >>> >> can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? >> >> >>> I am also not sure that the third point is correct. It was not that >>> 1,400 domains out of 4.1 million were analysed; it was that surveys were >>> sent to 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom were registrants). >>> Even if it was referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample size of >>> 1,400 domains probably is representative. >>> >>> I also am curious about the comment Anriette made on-list about budget; >>> I wonder if it was a case of the external consultants who drafted the >>> report underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a suitable amount for >>> the work but they did not pay the local contractors a suitable amount for >>> their contributions, or something else altogether. I am not sure we need to >>> bring this into our comment but it is interesting to me. >>> >>> >> understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the right place for >> that while we can ask details about the budgeting planned for those studies >> and which criteria for informational purpose. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement >>> Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM >>> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM >>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> To: ncsg-pc , dorothy g >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft ( >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxb >>> xl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit) and I am really happy to see several >>> fellow Africans participate in the review. >>> I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of NCSG comment >>> after the deadline and by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to >>> review the draft for endorsement or not in order to submit it by this >>> Friday. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments >>> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/docu >>> ment/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the >>> African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public- >>> comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) >>> >>> While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the >>> ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and >>> asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those >>> from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. >>> We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee >>> endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. >>> It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits >>> by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> =================================================== >>> >>> Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study >>> >>> (ADNSMS) >>> >>> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African >>> Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South >>> Africa Communications Forum. >>> >>> Methodology >>> >>> This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain >>> Name Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered >>> analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor >>> response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the >>> length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for >>> the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, >>> regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey >>> questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was >>> developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. >>> >>> Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other >>> criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of >>> the criteria used in the DNS success index. >>> >>> 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and >>> lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration >>> of the (ADNSMS) >>> >>> >>> Section 5 - Africa Rising >>> >>> Comment: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be >>> useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in >>> comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages >>> 85 & 86. >>> >>> >>> 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other >>> sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in >>> the main report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and >>> make use of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in >>> their originality. >>> >>> Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market >>> >>> Comment: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> This section provides useful background information but it could >>> benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These >>> include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the >>> African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific >>> cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would >>> increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second >>> instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does >>> not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the >>> advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in >>> uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced >>> valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a >>> review. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best >>> features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for >>> each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to >>> appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to >>> be tracked in each context. >>> >>> >>> Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region >>> >>> (see prior comment on methodology) >>> >>> Comment: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Please see above request for country profiles for all countries >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be >>> repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. >>> >>> >>> Section 8 Key success factors registries >>> >>> Section 9 - Growth Outlook >>> >>> The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to >>> the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. >>> It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this >>> linked to key factors at the country context. >>> >>> The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the >>> study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the >>> deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but >>> these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific >>> starting points. >>> >>> >>> ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and >>> weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop >>> recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the >>> opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. >>> >>> Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes >>> to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these >>> issues. >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 11 06:37:44 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 23:37:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I did an edit on the Google doc, just to smooth the additions and different style of the various authors. I have no content to add, sorry....but please feel free to edit if I have destroyed the sense of a given segment. It seems to me it could go now. Stephanie On 2017-05-10 21:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Dorothy, > > > are you proposing those changes below to be included in the document > as a response to Ayden? > the document to be tidied-up and need someone to go through at least > checking format and proofreading. > > for submission, my suggestion was to do it by Friday so we should > finalize review and endorsement by then. definitely, we shouldn't miss > that extended deadline > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-10 23:43 GMT+09:00 dorothy g >: > > 1. Include country profiles > > 2. Use global references for determining methodology of analysis > > 3. Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to get > greater buy in of stakeholders especially in response to > questionnaires. > > 4. Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g. Nacent, > Mid-range, Mature, > > > I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss and then > end up not sending anything because of timing. How much more time > are we giving this? Who finalises? > best > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for the comments, > > > 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline > >: > > Hi, > > I don't think this comment is ready for submission just > yet, but it is getting there. I am very grateful to > Dorothy for drafting it, and to all those who have > contributed comments. Alas, I think we need to be more > specific about what we would like done differently next > time the study is conducted. > > > can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? > > I am also not sure that the third point is correct. It was > not that 1,400 domains out of 4.1 million were analysed; > it was that surveys were sent to 1,400 respondents from > six sectors (some of whom were registrants). Even if it > was referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample size > of 1,400 domains probably is representative. > > I also am curious about the comment Anriette made on-list > about budget; I wonder if it was a case of the external > consultants who drafted the report underbidding for the > project, or if ICANN paid a suitable amount for the work > but they did not pay the local contractors a suitable > amount for their contributions, or something else > altogether. I am not sure we need to bring this into our > comment but it is interesting to me. > > > understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the right > place for that while we can ask details about the budgeting > planned for those studies and which criteria for informational > purpose. > > Best, > > Rafik > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment >> / Endorsement >> Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM >> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc > >, dorothy g >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft >> (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit >> ) >> and I am really happy to see several >> fellow Africans participate in the review. >> I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of >> NCSG comment after the deadline and by this week. I would >> like to kindly ask you to review the draft for >> endorsement or not in order to submit it by this Friday. >> Thanks. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for >> comments >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> " >> > > >> Cc: ncsg-pc > > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit >> . >> ) about the African DNS Market Study >> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en >> ) >> >> >> While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a >> request to the ICANN staff telling them that we are going >> to make a late submission and asking for extension. I >> would like to ask members and in particular those from >> Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review >> and comments. We should submit this comment by next week >> after NCSG Policy Committee endorsment based on members >> feebdack here and in the document. >> It will be great of you can make comments and any >> suggestion for edits by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve >> them before submission. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> =================================================== >> >> Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study >> (ADNSMS) >> >> >> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft >> 2016 African Domain Name Market Study carried out by a >> consortium led by the South Africa Communications Forum. >> >> >> Methodology >> >> This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the >> African Domain Name Market. The report sets out clearly >> the data challenges that hampered analysis in conducting >> this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor >> response levels (22% to the online survey) could have >> been affected by the length of the questionnaire, and the >> difficulty in getting responses for the full set of six >> specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, regulator >> etc per country. The report?s authors note that the >> survey questionnaire could have been streamlined. A >> Country DNS success index was developed by the authors to >> rank the health of African DNS markets. >> >> >> Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made >> reference to other criteria for benchmarking used in >> other regions to support the choice of the criteria used >> in the DNS success index. >> >> 2. Full discussion of the methodological >> deficiencies and lessons learnt should be included in an >> annex to support the next iteration of the (ADNSMS) >> >> >> >> Section 5 - Africa Rising >> >> >> Comment: >> >> >> 1. >> >> In order to make cross-country comparisons more >> realistic it may be useful to look at the size of a >> given country?s economy and population in comparison >> to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages >> on pages 85 & 86. >> >> >> 2. Much of the information in this section can be found >> in other sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed >> down version included in the main report could focus on >> ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use of >> the excellent summative graphics some of which are >> striking in their originality. >> >> >> Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market >> >> >> Comment: >> >> >> 1. >> >> This section provides useful background information >> but it could benefit from some more rigor in making >> its economic arguments. These include the analysis of >> demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the >> African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first >> instance more specific cases should be given to >> support the arguments given for changes that would >> increase demand e.g. improved local hosting >> infrastructure. In the second instance valuing simply >> on the prices that have been fixed for service does >> not take into account the multiplier effects within >> the economy. Given the advice to drop prices and the >> lack of evidence of the resulting increase in uptake >> in all country markets, the current approach could >> result in reduced valuation. This is just to point >> out that the approach may benefit from a review. >> >> >> 2. >> >> The detailed information on certain countries is one >> of the best features of this study. It may be useful >> to present a country profile for each African >> country, a kind of summary flash card that would >> allow us to appreciate where information is lacking >> and which indicators will need to be tracked in each >> context. >> >> >> Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region >> >> (see prior comment on methodology) >> >> Comment: >> >> >> 1. >> >> Please see above request for country profiles for all >> countries >> >> >> 2. >> >> The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 >> should be repositioned as it is currently split >> between 2 pages. >> >> >> Section 8 Key success factors registries >> >> >> Section 9 - Growth Outlook >> >> >> The part of this study that needs to be given more >> substance relates to the business models that will grow >> the African Domain Name System Market. It is important >> that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this >> linked to key factors at the country context. >> >> >> The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of >> reference for the study not only focused on the >> observation of what is happening but the deliberate >> intervention to speed growth. The study lists out >> factors but these are not put in the form of business >> models adapted to specific starting points. >> >> >> >> ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the >> strengths and weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within >> the Africa region and develop recommendations on how to >> advance the industry and bring it closer to the >> opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN >> request for comment. >> >> >> Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given >> the void it comes to fill. It should inspire many others >> to systematic research on these issues. >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Thu May 11 11:42:49 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 08:42:49 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link In-Reply-To: References: <514702CC-E21D-4A24-9246-3D2E69868E91@davecake.net> <420f4b96-cad3-0976-d2d9-0d7c3163ee21@intpolicy.com> <8cf5ab8b-98d4-8e7a-e5fc-2d142cbc0f72@apc.org> <79bf3568-e7b3-f75b-4a78-3fadac2004d9@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, Appreciated to you all for a task well done. Kind Regards Poncelet On 11 May 2017 at 01:38, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks all, with no objections raised here or at NCSG list and with > support from Mathew, Ayden, Ed and myself, I submitted the NCSG comment > (attached). > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-10 22:01 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. Noting that there has been no opposition >> expressed on the main Discuss list, I support the submission of this >> comment and extend my thanks to James and Matthew for drafting it. >> >> - Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comments on BGC Changes - new link >> Local Time: May 10, 2017 1:44 PM >> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 12:44 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: Matthew Shears >> ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> the deadline for submission is less than 12 hours. if there is no >> objection by then, I think we can submit the comment. please respond asap. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-10 13:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> this a reminder to get the votes/endorsement for the statement. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2017-05-09 22:57 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>>> Hi Matt, >>>> >>>> thanks for the amendments, >>>> we need to endorse the comment within 24 hours. please, all PC members >>>> share your thoughts and if you endorsing or not the statement. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-09 18:36 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Would be good if I included the right link: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KPaILgBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscu >>>>> F77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to Ayden for noticing. >>>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 09/05/2017 09:39, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on the feedback I have substantially redrafted and shortened >>>>>> our submission. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please edit in the doc. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/a/thefactory21.com/document/d/1KPaIL >>>>>> gBF3EhSGM2NmcyUlscuF77wDFxlgyOIebl1ZYo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> Deadline tomorrow Wed 10 23.59 UTC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthew >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/05/2017 18:13, avri doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> observer view: sounds good >>>>>>> >>>>>>> not sure the last bullet is needed. the fact that we are doing this >>>>>>> through the proper process is good as a test but is that a reason >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> doing it? but it seems ok to include it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 08-May-17 10:25, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks all for the comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Given the discussion, I am wondering whether or not we need to make >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> submission on this (there is only one so far - from AFNIC). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we feel we do, we could in a short statement: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Endorse the proposal for the creation of the Board >>>>>>>> Accountability >>>>>>>> Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) >>>>>>>> * Recognize the importance of and the need to respect the process >>>>>>>> for changing the fundamental bylaws >>>>>>>> * State that the proposed change is a useful and >>>>>>>> non-controversial >>>>>>>> way to engage and trial the associated accountability >>>>>>>> mechanisms >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What other points could be added? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Matthew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/05/2017 07:58, David Cake wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We need to fully respect the process for changing the fundamental >>>>>>>>> bylaws. I have absolutely no problem with the proposed change to do so - >>>>>>>>> and actually, I think an uncontroversial change like this is a good trial >>>>>>>>> for those processes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree with Milton that while change is uncontroversial, it not >>>>>>>>> only is it a fundamental bylaw, it is part of the accountability >>>>>>>>> mechanisms, and we should insist that accountability mechanisms are changed >>>>>>>>> only with due community process. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While I think in general we should avoid micromanaging board >>>>>>>>> internal processes to this extent, and I understand the reasoning behind >>>>>>>>> taking mention of a specific board committee out of bylaws, in practice the >>>>>>>>> current wording is a very simple and easy to understand change, and wording >>>>>>>>> that removed mention of a specific committee would be more complex and >>>>>>>>> potentially more ambiguous. If a committee was created specifically for >>>>>>>>> dealing with Accountability processes, it's unlikely any future changes >>>>>>>>> would be necessary (the board could effectively recombine committees in the >>>>>>>>> future if it wished without a bylaws change IMO). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6 May 2017, at 5:42 am, avri doria wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the problem is that we need to change the fundamental >>>>>>>>>> bylaws to >>>>>>>>>> take deciding on board committees out of the fundamental bylaws. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but in any case, got to do something about the bylaws. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 05-May-17 15:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Matt >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is not, and should not be, any way around this. The >>>>>>>>>>> problem is >>>>>>>>>>> not that ICANN needs a fundamental bylaw change to ?create a new >>>>>>>>>>> committee,? it is that Article 4 sec 3 of the bylaws, which is >>>>>>>>>>> designated as ?fundamental,? specifically names the BGC as the >>>>>>>>>>> handler >>>>>>>>>>> of Reconsideration requests. (??The Board has designated the >>>>>>>>>>> Board >>>>>>>>>>> Governance Committee to review and consider any such >>>>>>>>>>> Reconsideration >>>>>>>>>>> Requests.?) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Article 4 is also the home of a lot of other ?Accountability and >>>>>>>>>>> Review? stuff that we definitely do not want the board messing >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> without community approval. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So the board needs approval for this and should have to do >>>>>>>>>>> through >>>>>>>>>>> this exercise. But if the board decides to create a new >>>>>>>>>>> ?Committee to >>>>>>>>>>> organize birthday celebrations? or a ?Committee to Honor Snapping >>>>>>>>>>> Turtles? I don?t think there would be any problem. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And going forward, I guess ICANN legal and the rest of us will be >>>>>>>>>>> mindful of future flexibility when deciding where to put things >>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> bylaws. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One issue that has been raised is that it seems silly to have to >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> a fundamental bylaw change for the Board to be able to create a >>>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>> committee. It is not clear that there is anyway around this but >>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> love to hear otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >>>>>>>>>> software. >>>>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>>>>> +447712472987 >>>>>>>> Skype:mshears >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>> +447712472987 >>>>> Skype:mshears >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 11 23:10:37 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 16:10:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have just done some edits on the Google Doc too, adding some pleasantries to the introduction, fixing the formatting, and shortening a few sentences to make them easier to read. But I stopped on page 3, because I have not read the report and I can't comment on our arguments. Some of them are giving me pause. I don't know that I disagree with them, I just don't have the background to understand what we are asking versus what the report currently contains. I have deleted a few sentences from the first page which were not consistent with the draft report that I skim read, but I think the entire comment would benefit from review from someone who has actually, comprehensively, read it. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement Local Time: 11 May 2017 4:35 AM UTC Time: 11 May 2017 03:35 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is I did an edit on the Google doc, just to smooth the additions and different style of the various authors. I have no content to add, sorry....but please feel free to edit if I have destroyed the sense of a given segment. It seems to me it could go now. Stephanie On 2017-05-10 21:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Dorothy, are you proposing those changes below to be included in the document as a response to Ayden? the document to be tidied-up and need someone to go through at least checking format and proofreading. for submission, my suggestion was to do it by Friday so we should finalize review and endorsement by then. definitely, we shouldn't miss that extended deadline Best, Rafik 2017-05-10 23:43 GMT+09:00 dorothy g : 1. Include country profiles 2. Use global references for determining methodology of analysis 3. Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to get greater buy in of stakeholders especially in response to questionnaires. 4. Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g. Nacent, Mid-range, Mature, I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss and then end up not sending anything because of timing. How much more time are we giving this? Who finalises? best On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ayden, Thanks for the comments, 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Hi, I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet, but it is getting there. I am very grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think we need to be more specific about what we would like done differently next time the study is conducted. can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? I am also not sure that the third point is correct. It was not that 1,400 domains out of 4.1 million were analysed; it was that surveys were sent to 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom were registrants). Even if it was referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample size of 1,400 domains probably is representative. I also am curious about the comment Anriette made on-list about budget; I wonder if it was a case of the external consultants who drafted the report underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a suitable amount for the work but they did not pay the local contractors a suitable amount for their contributions, or something else altogether. I am not sure we need to bring this into our comment but it is interesting to me. understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the right place for that while we can ask details about the budgeting planned for those studies and which criteria for informational purpose. Best, Rafik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc , dorothy g Hi all, we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit) and I am really happy to see several fellow Africans participate in the review. I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of NCSG comment after the deadline and by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to review the draft for endorsement or not in order to submit it by this Friday. Thanks. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" Cc: ncsg-pc Hi all, Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. Best, Rafik =================================================== [Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) (ADNSMS) The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South Africa Communications Forum. Methodology This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain Name Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of the criteria used in the DNS success index. 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next iteration of the (ADNSMS) Section 5 - Africa Rising Comment: - In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages 85 & 86. 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the main report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and make use of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their originality. Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market Comment: - This section provides useful background information but it could benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a review. - The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to be tracked in each context. Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region (see prior comment on methodology) Comment: - Please see above request for country profiles for all countries - The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. Section 8 Key success factors registries Section 9 - Growth Outlook The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this linked to key factors at the country context. The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific starting points. ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these issues. _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 12 02:20:39 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:20:39 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Adyen for the editing, the comment looks neat. the ICANN staff is planning to make its response report by 18/19th May, if we want to have our comments included we should submit by this Friday I see that many of our African members agree with the content and I don't see any specific concern in the statement other than the confusion about sampling (i.e. 1400 domain) which was resolved already by removing it due to nonconsensus. I do interpret that we have support from NCSG list. we need PC members to go through the statement and give their opinion on Friday in order to submit in time. Best, Rafik 2017-05-12 5:10 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > I have just done some edits on the Google Doc too, adding some > pleasantries to the introduction, fixing the formatting, and shortening a > few sentences to make them easier to read. But I stopped on page 3, because > I have not read the report and I can't comment on our arguments. Some of > them are giving me pause. I don't know that I disagree with them, I just > don't have the background to understand what we are asking versus what the > report currently contains. I have deleted a few sentences from the first > page which were not consistent with the draft report that I skim read, but > I think the entire comment would benefit from review from someone who has > actually, comprehensively, read it. > > - Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement > Local Time: 11 May 2017 4:35 AM > UTC Time: 11 May 2017 03:35 > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > > I did an edit on the Google doc, just to smooth the additions and > different style of the various authors. I have no content to add, > sorry....but please feel free to edit if I have destroyed the sense of a > given segment. It seems to me it could go now. > > Stephanie > > On 2017-05-10 21:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Dorothy, > > > are you proposing those changes below to be included in the document as a > response to Ayden? > the document to be tidied-up and need someone to go through at least > checking format and proofreading. > > for submission, my suggestion was to do it by Friday so we should finalize > review and endorsement by then. definitely, we shouldn't miss that extended > deadline > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-10 23:43 GMT+09:00 dorothy g : > > 1. Include country profiles >> >> 2. Use global references for determining methodology of analysis >> >> 3. Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to get greater buy >> in of stakeholders especially in response to questionnaires. >> >> 4. Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g. Nacent, Mid-range, >> Mature, >> >> >> I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss and then end up >> not sending anything because of timing. How much more time are we giving >> this? Who finalises? >> best >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks for the comments, >>> >>> >>> 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet, but it is >>>> getting there. I am very grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all >>>> those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think we need to be more >>>> specific about what we would like done differently next time the study is >>>> conducted. >>>> >>>> >>> can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? >>> >>> >>>> I am also not sure that the third point is correct. It was not that >>>> 1,400 domains out of 4.1 million were analysed; it was that surveys were >>>> sent to 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom were registrants). >>>> Even if it was referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample size of >>>> 1,400 domains probably is representative. >>>> >>>> I also am curious about the comment Anriette made on-list about budget; >>>> I wonder if it was a case of the external consultants who drafted the >>>> report underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a suitable amount for >>>> the work but they did not pay the local contractors a suitable amount for >>>> their contributions, or something else altogether. I am not sure we need to >>>> bring this into our comment but it is interesting to me. >>>> >>>> >>> understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the right place for >>> that while we can ask details about the budgeting planned for those studies >>> and which criteria for informational purpose. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement >>>> Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM >>>> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM >>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> To: ncsg-pc , dorothy g >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft ( >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxb >>>> xl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit) and I am really happy to see several >>>> fellow Africans participate in the review. >>>> I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of NCSG comment >>>> after the deadline and by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to >>>> review the draft for endorsement or not in order to submit it by this >>>> Friday. >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>> Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments >>>> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/docu >>>> ment/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the >>>> African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public- >>>> comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) >>>> >>>> While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the >>>> ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and >>>> asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those >>>> from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. >>>> We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee >>>> endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. >>>> It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits >>>> by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> =================================================== >>>> >>>> Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study >>>> >>>> (ADNSMS) >>>> >>>> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African >>>> Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South >>>> Africa Communications Forum. >>>> >>>> Methodology >>>> >>>> This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain >>>> Name Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered >>>> analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor >>>> response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the >>>> length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for >>>> the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, >>>> regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey >>>> questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was >>>> developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. >>>> >>>> Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other >>>> criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of >>>> the criteria used in the DNS success index. >>>> >>>> 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies >>>> and lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next >>>> iteration of the (ADNSMS) >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 5 - Africa Rising >>>> >>>> Comment: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be >>>> useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population in >>>> comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on pages >>>> 85 & 86. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other >>>> sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in >>>> the main report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and >>>> make use of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in >>>> their originality. >>>> >>>> Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market >>>> >>>> Comment: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> This section provides useful background information but it could >>>> benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These >>>> include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the >>>> African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific >>>> cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would >>>> increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second >>>> instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does >>>> not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the >>>> advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in >>>> uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced >>>> valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a >>>> review. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best >>>> features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for >>>> each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to >>>> appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to >>>> be tracked in each context. >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region >>>> >>>> (see prior comment on methodology) >>>> >>>> Comment: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Please see above request for country profiles for all countries >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be >>>> repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 8 Key success factors registries >>>> >>>> Section 9 - Growth Outlook >>>> >>>> The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to >>>> the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System Market. >>>> It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this >>>> linked to key factors at the country context. >>>> >>>> The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the >>>> study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the >>>> deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but >>>> these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific >>>> starting points. >>>> >>>> >>>> ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and >>>> weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop >>>> recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the >>>> opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. >>>> >>>> Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it >>>> comes to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on >>>> these issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Fri May 12 07:44:43 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 00:44:43 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6f39e8d4-d046-b18d-0e5a-60052fe947e2@apc.org> Observing: this is a strong comment and except for empty section 8, should be submitted. Would be a pity if it weren't submitted in time for inclusion. avri On 11-May-17 19:20, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Adyen for the editing, the comment looks neat. > the ICANN staff is planning to make its response report by 18/19th > May, if we want to have our comments included we should submit by this > Friday > I see that many of our African members agree with the content and I > don't see any specific concern in the statement other than the > confusion about sampling (i.e. 1400 domain) which was resolved already > by removing it due to nonconsensus. I do interpret that we have > support from NCSG list. > we need PC members to go through the statement and give their opinion > on Friday in order to submit in time. > > Best, > > Rafik --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 12 10:45:30 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:45:30 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi - I have read through this quickly. I have not read the report. I made a few small edits. I think it is OK to send - I am trusting that others who have read the report in detail have reviewed. Matthew On 12/05/2017 00:20, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Adyen for the editing, the comment looks neat. > the ICANN staff is planning to make its response report by 18/19th > May, if we want to have our comments included we should submit by this > Friday > I see that many of our African members agree with the content and I > don't see any specific concern in the statement other than the > confusion about sampling (i.e. 1400 domain) which was resolved already > by removing it due to nonconsensus. I do interpret that we have > support from NCSG list. > we need PC members to go through the statement and give their opinion > on Friday in order to submit in time. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-12 5:10 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: > > I have just done some edits on the Google Doc too, adding some > pleasantries to the introduction, fixing the formatting, and > shortening a few sentences to make them easier to read. But I > stopped on page 3, because I have not read the report and I can't > comment on our arguments. Some of them are giving me pause. I > don't know that I disagree with them, I just don't have the > background to understand what we are asking versus what the report > currently contains. I have deleted a few sentences from the first > page which were not consistent with the draft report that I skim > read, but I think the entire comment would benefit from review > from someone who has actually, comprehensively, read it. > > - Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / >> Endorsement >> Local Time: 11 May 2017 4:35 AM >> UTC Time: 11 May 2017 03:35 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> >> I did an edit on the Google doc, just to smooth the additions and >> different style of the various authors. I have no content to >> add, sorry....but please feel free to edit if I have destroyed >> the sense of a given segment. It seems to me it could go now. >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> On 2017-05-10 21:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Dorothy, >>> >>> >>> are you proposing those changes below to be included in the >>> document as a response to Ayden? >>> the document to be tidied-up and need someone to go through at >>> least checking format and proofreading. >>> >>> for submission, my suggestion was to do it by Friday so we >>> should finalize review and endorsement by then. definitely, we >>> shouldn't miss that extended deadline >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-10 23:43 GMT+09:00 dorothy g >> >: >>> >>> 1. Include country profiles >>> >>> 2. Use global references for determining methodology of >>> analysis >>> >>> 3. Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to get >>> greater buy in of stakeholders especially in response to >>> questionnaires. >>> >>> 4. Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g. >>> Nacent, Mid-range, Mature, >>> >>> >>> I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss and >>> then end up not sending anything because of timing. How >>> much more time are we giving this? Who finalises? >>> best >>> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks for the comments, >>> >>> >>> 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >>> >: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't think this comment is ready for submission >>> just yet, but it is getting there. I am very >>> grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all >>> those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think >>> we need to be more specific about what we would like >>> done differently next time the study is conducted. >>> >>> >>> can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? >>> >>> I am also not sure that the third point is correct. >>> It was not that 1,400 domains out of 4.1 million >>> were analysed; it was that surveys were sent to >>> 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom >>> were registrants). Even if it was referring to >>> domains, my hunch is that a sample size of 1,400 >>> domains probably is representative. >>> >>> I also am curious about the comment Anriette made >>> on-list about budget; I wonder if it was a case of >>> the external consultants who drafted the report >>> underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a >>> suitable amount for the work but they did not pay >>> the local contractors a suitable amount for their >>> contributions, or something else altogether. I am >>> not sure we need to bring this into our comment but >>> it is interesting to me. >>> >>> >>> understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the >>> right place for that while we can ask details about the >>> budgeting planned for those studies and which criteria >>> for informational purpose. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG >>>> comment / Endorsement >>>> Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM >>>> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM >>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> >>>> To: ncsg-pc >>> >, dorothy g >>>> > >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we got several comments from NCSG members on the >>>> draft >>>> (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit >>>> ) >>>> and I am really happy to see several >>>> fellow Africans participate in the review. >>>> I could get from ICANN staff to accept the >>>> submission of NCSG comment after the deadline and >>>> by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to >>>> review the draft for endorsement or not in order to >>>> submit it by this Friday. >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>> > >>>> Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / >>>> Call for comments >>>> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>> " >>>> >>> > >>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit >>>> . >>>> ) about the African DNS Market Study >>>> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en >>>> ) >>>> >>>> >>>> While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already >>>> sent a request to the ICANN staff telling them that >>>> we are going to make a late submission and asking >>>> for extension. I would like to ask members and in >>>> particular those from Africa to go through the >>>> draft in google doc for review and comments. We >>>> should submit this comment by next week after NCSG >>>> Policy Committee endorsment based on members >>>> feebdack here and in the document. >>>> It will be great of you can make comments and any >>>> suggestion for edits by Tuesday 9th May so we can >>>> resolve them before submission. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> =================================================== >>>> >>>> Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study >>>> (ADNSMS) >>>> >>>> >>>> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the >>>> Draft 2016 African Domain Name Market Study carried >>>> out by a consortium led by the South Africa >>>> Communications Forum. >>>> >>>> >>>> Methodology >>>> >>>> This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of >>>> the African Domain Name Market. The report sets >>>> out clearly the data challenges that hampered >>>> analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The >>>> study indicates that poor response levels (22% to >>>> the online survey) could have been affected by the >>>> length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in >>>> getting responses for the full set of six >>>> specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, >>>> regulator etc per country. The report?s authors >>>> note that the survey questionnaire could have been >>>> streamlined. A Country DNS success index was >>>> developed by the authors to rank the health of >>>> African DNS markets. >>>> >>>> >>>> Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made >>>> reference to other criteria for benchmarking used >>>> in other regions to support the choice of the >>>> criteria used in the DNS success index. >>>> >>>> 2. Full discussion of the >>>> methodological deficiencies and lessons learnt >>>> should be included in an annex to support the next >>>> iteration of the (ADNSMS) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 5 - Africa Rising >>>> >>>> >>>> Comment: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> In order to make cross-country comparisons more >>>> realistic it may be useful to look at the size >>>> of a given country?s economy and population in >>>> comparison to its existing DNS market. This is >>>> done for webpages on pages 85 & 86. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Much of the information in this section can be >>>> found in other sources and could be put in annex. >>>> The slimmed down version included in the main >>>> report could focus on ?value addition? to the main >>>> arguments and make use of the excellent summative >>>> graphics some of which are striking in their >>>> originality. >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market >>>> >>>> >>>> Comment: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> This section provides useful background >>>> information but it could benefit from some more >>>> rigor in making its economic arguments. These >>>> include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) >>>> and the valuation of the African DNS industry >>>> (section 6.5) . In the first instance more >>>> specific cases should be given to support the >>>> arguments given for changes that would increase >>>> demand e.g. improved local hosting >>>> infrastructure. In the second instance valuing >>>> simply on the prices that have been fixed for >>>> service does not take into account the >>>> multiplier effects within the economy. Given >>>> the advice to drop prices and the lack of >>>> evidence of the resulting increase in uptake in >>>> all country markets, the current approach could >>>> result in reduced valuation. This is just to >>>> point out that the approach may benefit from a >>>> review. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> The detailed information on certain countries >>>> is one of the best features of this study. It >>>> may be useful to present a country profile for >>>> each African country, a kind of summary flash >>>> card that would allow us to appreciate where >>>> information is lacking and which indicators >>>> will need to be tracked in each context. >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across >>>> the region >>>> >>>> (see prior comment on methodology) >>>> >>>> Comment: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Please see above request for country profiles >>>> for all countries >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> The table presenting the rankings in section >>>> 7.2 should be repositioned as it is currently >>>> split between 2 pages. >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 8 Key success factors registries >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 9 - Growth Outlook >>>> >>>> >>>> The part of this study that needs to be given more >>>> substance relates to the business models that will >>>> grow the African Domain Name System Market. It is >>>> important that the study includes an in-depth >>>> treatment of this linked to key factors at the >>>> country context. >>>> >>>> >>>> The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms >>>> of reference for the study not only focused on the >>>> observation of what is happening but the deliberate >>>> intervention to speed growth. The study lists out >>>> factors but these are not put in the form of >>>> business models adapted to specific starting points. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?The goal of this study is to identify and define >>>> the strengths and weaknesses in the industry >>>> ecosystem within the Africa region and develop >>>> recommendations on how to advance the industry and >>>> bring it closer to the opportunities available.? >>>> From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. >>>> >>>> >>>> Overall the study is an impressive piece of work >>>> given the void it comes to fill. It should inspire >>>> many others to systematic research on these issues. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 13 02:57:49 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 08:57:49 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, With no objections raised in PC, having PC members reviewing and editing for proofreading and with support from the discussion in NCSG list for sending a comment, I interpret that we have consensus and that we shouldn't miss the opportunity to get our feedback included. I will submit the statement and inform the ICANN staff in order to include our suggestions. Best, Rafik 2017-05-12 16:45 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > Hi - I have read through this quickly. I have not read the report. I > made a few small edits. I think it is OK to send - I am trusting that > others who have read the report in detail have reviewed. > > Matthew > > On 12/05/2017 00:20, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Thanks Adyen for the editing, the comment looks neat. > the ICANN staff is planning to make its response report by 18/19th May, if > we want to have our comments included we should submit by this Friday > I see that many of our African members agree with the content and I don't > see any specific concern in the statement other than the confusion about > sampling (i.e. 1400 domain) which was resolved already by removing it due > to nonconsensus. I do interpret that we have support from NCSG list. > we need PC members to go through the statement and give their opinion on > Friday in order to submit in time. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-12 5:10 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> I have just done some edits on the Google Doc too, adding some >> pleasantries to the introduction, fixing the formatting, and shortening a >> few sentences to make them easier to read. But I stopped on page 3, because >> I have not read the report and I can't comment on our arguments. Some of >> them are giving me pause. I don't know that I disagree with them, I just >> don't have the background to understand what we are asking versus what the >> report currently contains. I have deleted a few sentences from the first >> page which were not consistent with the draft report that I skim read, but >> I think the entire comment would benefit from review from someone who has >> actually, comprehensively, read it. >> >> - Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement >> Local Time: 11 May 2017 4:35 AM >> UTC Time: 11 May 2017 03:35 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> >> I did an edit on the Google doc, just to smooth the additions and >> different style of the various authors. I have no content to add, >> sorry....but please feel free to edit if I have destroyed the sense of a >> given segment. It seems to me it could go now. >> >> Stephanie >> >> On 2017-05-10 21:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Dorothy, >> >> >> are you proposing those changes below to be included in the document as a >> response to Ayden? >> the document to be tidied-up and need someone to go through at least >> checking format and proofreading. >> >> for submission, my suggestion was to do it by Friday so we should >> finalize review and endorsement by then. definitely, we shouldn't miss that >> extended deadline >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-10 23:43 GMT+09:00 dorothy g : >> >> 1. Include country profiles >>> >>> 2. Use global references for determining methodology of analysis >>> >>> 3. Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to get greater buy >>> in of stakeholders especially in response to questionnaires. >>> >>> 4. Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g. Nacent, >>> Mid-range, Mature, >>> >>> >>> I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss and then end up >>> not sending anything because of timing. How much more time are we giving >>> this? Who finalises? >>> best >>> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the comments, >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet, but it is >>>>> getting there. I am very grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all >>>>> those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think we need to be more >>>>> specific about what we would like done differently next time the study is >>>>> conducted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am also not sure that the third point is correct. It was not that >>>>> 1,400 domains out of 4.1 million were analysed; it was that surveys were >>>>> sent to 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom were registrants). >>>>> Even if it was referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample size of >>>>> 1,400 domains probably is representative. >>>>> >>>>> I also am curious about the comment Anriette made on-list about >>>>> budget; I wonder if it was a case of the external consultants who drafted >>>>> the report underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a suitable amount >>>>> for the work but they did not pay the local contractors a suitable amount >>>>> for their contributions, or something else altogether. I am not sure we >>>>> need to bring this into our comment but it is interesting to me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the right place >>>> for that while we can ask details about the budgeting planned for those >>>> studies and which criteria for informational purpose. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement >>>>> Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM >>>>> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM >>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> To: ncsg-pc , dorothy g >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> we got several comments from NCSG members on the draft ( >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxb >>>>> xl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit) and I am really happy to see several >>>>> fellow Africans participate in the review. >>>>> I could get from ICANN staff to accept the submission of NCSG comment >>>>> after the deadline and by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to >>>>> review the draft for endorsement or not in order to submit it by this >>>>> Friday. >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>> Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 >>>>> Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments >>>>> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" >>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/docu >>>>> ment/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about >>>>> the African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public- >>>>> comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en) >>>>> >>>>> While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the >>>>> ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and >>>>> asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular those >>>>> from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and comments. >>>>> We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee >>>>> endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document. >>>>> It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits >>>>> by Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> =================================================== >>>>> >>>>> Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study >>>>> >>>>> (ADNSMS) >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African >>>>> Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South >>>>> Africa Communications Forum. >>>>> >>>>> Methodology >>>>> >>>>> This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain >>>>> Name Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered >>>>> analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that poor >>>>> response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by the >>>>> length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for >>>>> the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar, >>>>> regulator etc per country. The report?s authors note that the survey >>>>> questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index was >>>>> developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets. >>>>> >>>>> Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other >>>>> criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of >>>>> the criteria used in the DNS success index. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies >>>>> and lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next >>>>> iteration of the (ADNSMS) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 5 - Africa Rising >>>>> >>>>> Comment: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may >>>>> be useful to look at the size of a given country?s economy and population >>>>> in comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on >>>>> pages 85 & 86. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other >>>>> sources and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in >>>>> the main report could focus on ?value addition? to the main arguments and >>>>> make use of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in >>>>> their originality. >>>>> >>>>> Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market >>>>> >>>>> Comment: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> This section provides useful background information but it could >>>>> benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These >>>>> include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of the >>>>> African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more specific >>>>> cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that would >>>>> increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the second >>>>> instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for service does >>>>> not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy. Given the >>>>> advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting increase in >>>>> uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in reduced >>>>> valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit from a >>>>> review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best >>>>> features of this study. It may be useful to present a country profile for >>>>> each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow us to >>>>> appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will need to >>>>> be tracked in each context. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region >>>>> >>>>> (see prior comment on methodology) >>>>> >>>>> Comment: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> Please see above request for country profiles for all countries >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be >>>>> repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 8 Key success factors registries >>>>> >>>>> Section 9 - Growth Outlook >>>>> >>>>> The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates >>>>> to the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System >>>>> Market. It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of >>>>> this linked to key factors at the country context. >>>>> >>>>> The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for >>>>> the study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the >>>>> deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors but >>>>> these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific >>>>> starting points. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and >>>>> weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and develop >>>>> recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to the >>>>> opportunities available.? From Section 1 in the ICANN request for comment. >>>>> >>>>> Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it >>>>> comes to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on >>>>> these issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSGCommentonDraft2016AfricanDomainNameSystemMarketStudy.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 104384 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Sat May 13 11:50:47 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 09:50:47 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3fcf38b2-9115-2e49-6fa9-88c00ea85f38@intpolicy.com> Thanks Rafik. On 13/05/2017 00:57, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > With no objections raised in PC, having PC members reviewing and > editing for proofreading and with support from the discussion in NCSG > list for sending a comment, I interpret that we have consensus and > that we shouldn't miss the opportunity to get our feedback included. I > will submit the statement and inform the ICANN staff in order to > include our suggestions. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-12 16:45 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >: > > Hi - I have read through this quickly. I have not read the > report. I made a few small edits. I think it is OK to send - I > am trusting that others who have read the report in detail have > reviewed. > > Matthew > > > On 12/05/2017 00:20, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Thanks Adyen for the editing, the comment looks neat. >> the ICANN staff is planning to make its response report by >> 18/19th May, if we want to have our comments included we should >> submit by this Friday >> I see that many of our African members agree with the content and >> I don't see any specific concern in the statement other than the >> confusion about sampling (i.e. 1400 domain) which was resolved >> already by removing it due to nonconsensus. I do interpret that >> we have support from NCSG list. >> we need PC members to go through the statement and give their >> opinion on Friday in order to submit in time. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-12 5:10 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline > >: >> >> I have just done some edits on the Google Doc too, adding >> some pleasantries to the introduction, fixing the formatting, >> and shortening a few sentences to make them easier to read. >> But I stopped on page 3, because I have not read the report >> and I can't comment on our arguments. Some of them are giving >> me pause. I don't know that I disagree with them, I just >> don't have the background to understand what we are asking >> versus what the report currently contains. I have deleted a >> few sentences from the first page which were not consistent >> with the draft report that I skim read, but I think the >> entire comment would benefit from review from someone who has >> actually, comprehensively, read it. >> >> - Ayden >> >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment >>> / Endorsement >>> Local Time: 11 May 2017 4:35 AM >>> UTC Time: 11 May 2017 03:35 >>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>> >>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> >>> I did an edit on the Google doc, just to smooth the >>> additions and different style of the various authors. I >>> have no content to add, sorry....but please feel free to >>> edit if I have destroyed the sense of a given segment. It >>> seems to me it could go now. >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> >>> On 2017-05-10 21:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi Dorothy, >>>> >>>> >>>> are you proposing those changes below to be included in the >>>> document as a response to Ayden? >>>> the document to be tidied-up and need someone to go through >>>> at least checking format and proofreading. >>>> >>>> for submission, my suggestion was to do it by Friday so we >>>> should finalize review and endorsement by then. definitely, >>>> we shouldn't miss that extended deadline >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-10 23:43 GMT+09:00 dorothy g >>> >: >>>> >>>> 1. Include country profiles >>>> >>>> 2. Use global references for determining methodology >>>> of analysis >>>> >>>> 3. Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to >>>> get greater buy in of stakeholders especially in >>>> response to questionnaires. >>>> >>>> 4. Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g. >>>> Nacent, Mid-range, Mature, >>>> >>>> >>>> I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss >>>> and then end up not sending anything because of timing. >>>> How much more time are we giving this? Who finalises? >>>> best >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the comments, >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I don't think this comment is ready for >>>> submission just yet, but it is getting there. I >>>> am very grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, >>>> and to all those who have contributed comments. >>>> Alas, I think we need to be more specific about >>>> what we would like done differently next time >>>> the study is conducted. >>>> >>>> >>>> can you make the suggetsion directly in the document? >>>> >>>> I am also not sure that the third point is >>>> correct. It was not that 1,400 domains out of >>>> 4.1 million were analysed; it was that surveys >>>> were sent to 1,400 respondents from six sectors >>>> (some of whom were registrants). Even if it was >>>> referring to domains, my hunch is that a sample >>>> size of 1,400 domains probably is representative. >>>> >>>> I also am curious about the comment Anriette >>>> made on-list about budget; I wonder if it was a >>>> case of the external consultants who drafted >>>> the report underbidding for the project, or if >>>> ICANN paid a suitable amount for the work but >>>> they did not pay the local contractors a >>>> suitable amount for their contributions, or >>>> something else altogether. I am not sure we >>>> need to bring this into our comment but it is >>>> interesting to me. >>>> >>>> >>>> understood, but I am not sure that is the comment >>>> is the right place for that while we can ask >>>> details about the budgeting planned for those >>>> studies and which criteria for informational purpose. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study >>>>> NCSG comment / Endorsement >>>>> Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM >>>>> UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM >>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>> >, dorothy g >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> we got several comments from NCSG members on >>>>> the draft >>>>> (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit >>>>> ) >>>>> and I am really happy to see several >>>>> fellow Africans participate in the review. >>>>> I could get from ICANN staff to accept the >>>>> submission of NCSG comment after the deadline >>>>> and by this week. I would like to kindly ask >>>>> you to review the draft for endorsement or not >>>>> in order to submit it by this Friday. >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>> > >>>>> Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00 >>>>> Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment >>>>> / Call for comments >>>>> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>> " >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit >>>>> . >>>>> ) about the African DNS Market Study >>>>> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en >>>>> ) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I >>>>> already sent a request to the ICANN staff >>>>> telling them that we are going to make a late >>>>> submission and asking for extension. I would >>>>> like to ask members and in particular those >>>>> from Africa to go through the draft in google >>>>> doc for review and comments. We should submit >>>>> this comment by next week after NCSG Policy >>>>> Committee endorsment based on members feebdack >>>>> here and in the document. >>>>> It will be great of you can make comments and >>>>> any suggestion for edits by Tuesday 9th May so >>>>> we can resolve them before submission. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> =================================================== >>>>> >>>>> Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market >>>>> Study >>>>> (ADNSMS) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment >>>>> on the Draft 2016 African Domain Name Market >>>>> Study carried out by a consortium led by the >>>>> South Africa Communications Forum. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Methodology >>>>> >>>>> This is a first attempt to present a snapshot >>>>> of the African Domain Name Market. The report >>>>> sets out clearly the data challenges that >>>>> hampered analysis in conducting this baseline >>>>> survey. The study indicates that poor >>>>> response levels (22% to the online survey) >>>>> could have been affected by the length of the >>>>> questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting >>>>> responses for the full set of six specifically >>>>> targeted questionnaires registrar, regulator >>>>> etc per country. The report?s authors note >>>>> that the survey questionnaire could have been >>>>> streamlined. A Country DNS success index was >>>>> developed by the authors to rank the health of >>>>> African DNS markets. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Comment: 1. It would be good if the report >>>>> made reference to other criteria for >>>>> benchmarking used in other regions to support >>>>> the choice of the criteria used in the DNS >>>>> success index. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Full discussion of the >>>>> methodological deficiencies and lessons learnt >>>>> should be included in an annex to support the >>>>> next iteration of the (ADNSMS) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 5 - Africa Rising >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Comment: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> In order to make cross-country comparisons >>>>> more realistic it may be useful to look at >>>>> the size of a given country?s economy and >>>>> population in comparison to its existing >>>>> DNS market. This is done for webpages on >>>>> pages 85 & 86. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. Much of the information in this section can >>>>> be found in other sources and could be put in >>>>> annex. The slimmed down version included in >>>>> the main report could focus on ?value >>>>> addition? to the main arguments and make use >>>>> of the excellent summative graphics some of >>>>> which are striking in their originality. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Comment: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> This section provides useful background >>>>> information but it could benefit from some >>>>> more rigor in making its economic >>>>> arguments. These include the analysis of >>>>> demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of >>>>> the African DNS industry (section 6.5) . >>>>> In the first instance more specific cases >>>>> should be given to support the arguments >>>>> given for changes that would increase >>>>> demand e.g. improved local hosting >>>>> infrastructure. In the second instance >>>>> valuing simply on the prices that have >>>>> been fixed for service does not take into >>>>> account the multiplier effects within the >>>>> economy. Given the advice to drop prices >>>>> and the lack of evidence of the resulting >>>>> increase in uptake in all country markets, >>>>> the current approach could result in >>>>> reduced valuation. This is just to point >>>>> out that the approach may benefit from a >>>>> review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. >>>>> >>>>> The detailed information on certain >>>>> countries is one of the best features of >>>>> this study. It may be useful to present a >>>>> country profile for each African country, >>>>> a kind of summary flash card that would >>>>> allow us to appreciate where information >>>>> is lacking and which indicators will need >>>>> to be tracked in each context. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake >>>>> Across the region >>>>> >>>>> (see prior comment on >>>>> methodology) >>>>> >>>>> Comment: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> Please see above request for country >>>>> profiles for all countries >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. >>>>> >>>>> The table presenting the rankings in >>>>> section 7.2 should be repositioned as it >>>>> is currently split between 2 pages. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 8 Key success factors registries >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 9 - Growth Outlook >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The part of this study that needs to be given >>>>> more substance relates to the business models >>>>> that will grow the African Domain Name System >>>>> Market. It is important that the study >>>>> includes an in-depth treatment of this linked >>>>> to key factors at the country context. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The observatory is clearly necessary but the >>>>> terms of reference for the study not only >>>>> focused on the observation of what is >>>>> happening but the deliberate intervention to >>>>> speed growth. The study lists out factors >>>>> but these are not put in the form of business >>>>> models adapted to specific starting points. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?The goal of this study is to identify and >>>>> define the strengths and weaknesses in the >>>>> industry ecosystem within the Africa region >>>>> and develop recommendations on how to advance >>>>> the industry and bring it closer to the >>>>> opportunities available.? From Section 1 in >>>>> the ICANN request for comment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Overall the study is an impressive piece of >>>>> work given the void it comes to fill. It >>>>> should inspire many others to systematic >>>>> research on these issues. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 15 15:24:11 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 21:24:11 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, we have to review the draft and prepare for submission by Friday 19th May. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-15 21:22 GMT+09:00 Subject: Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" Hi all, this is a reminder to review and add your comments on the draft made by Poncelet for NCSG on the Competition, Consumer, Consumer Choice review team report https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZj tjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit (the public comment is here https://www.icann.org/public- comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en) the deadline for submission is the 19th May. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 17 05:38:39 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 11:38:39 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation Message-ID: Hi all, Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing . Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday 19th May. Best. Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 18 11:53:40 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 04:53:40 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Attendance & Recording - NCSG Open Policy Call 17 May 2017 In-Reply-To: <56DF7509-4D7D-48B9-85B0-B0744BC5E215@icann.org> References: <56DF7509-4D7D-48B9-85B0-B0744BC5E215@icann.org> Message-ID: Sorry I missed this call. My availability to participate in calls in real-time is limited this month, but I will catch up on the recording. Thank you. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Attendance & Recording - NCSG Open Policy Call 17 May 2017 Local Time: May 17, 2017 11:23 PM UTC Time: May 17, 2017 10:23 PM From: maryam.bakoshi at ICANN.ORG To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Dear all, Please find attendance and recording of the Monthly NCSG Open Policy Call on 17 May 2017 at 1300 UTC. Attendance: Joan Kerr, Rafik Dammak, Stefania Milan, Tapani Tarvainen, Avri Doria, Ed Morris, Claudio Lucena, Bruna Santos, David Cake, Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Akinremi Peter Taiwo, Milton Mueller, Malisa Richards, Viviane Vinagre, Szeming, Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin Apologies: Maria Moll Staff: Maryam Bakoshi Agenda & Transcript: Attached Mp3: [https://icann.box.com/shared/static/49z8ukt08q054mklmzgwr9bgpxug799b.mp3[mailer.samanage.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_click-3Fupn-3DzZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2D2FNugFnAwo9az5qWXNwufREg7R2ga9qR42oziqkEXhUdWmi5IX10MT5dF591hnb9DCkWupsYHQxYoorLyI6970-2D3D-5FFiroU9WATfGGQpGIbRb8NkCMVsuIUf2Oa7q-2D2B6QPGPd0P9ACvn3Y7Ub4pcSRvAWpR4eEu9NGmxpUPeW0JVeMqcxBkC1ajwg6Efba9JnrHuvaGkytYht-2D2BcRzRzRdO6GDE510ktfNBk9SsN-2D2BN0dEU5DFF3QEQ5iwAN6-2D2B-2D2BxBtC6uhITOohlogAogeBf50rZYVN91efCNDdqf2xJtlfeMsjjuKwwI-2D2Fv0Q6Ii683hkjY4yh0ugtBJy8kQ9MDNZO0wu9fgOt1IUPSpIab0HX5izhrz2kYFbcmiVhCOG9Jy-2D2FnQ0CYX9LnKY3gPIiyb-2D2B2owS0TCyoHxhYP8GJ24ESCIoN9et5GszYspsCs-2D2Fgjqb110beZFPNmJcvp5UWf1UP9VWM8jzXoQgSXlnD0ZGxhiUlemlhV8-2D2F1B5-2D2FqBP3a6Y5-2D2BkrlXLphZGeDOWA-2D2BUdY1BS9KyI4VOokgPZdDAfTy2WkkLrobr1mST3mIMwo0RDghzZ3Ksf-2D2Bx1lpnF2nZHbJRs4BW-2D2B-2D2FDqpy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=STaNQm1K7yXWeHhLiDzxICKftf_kn6cKoFH70oWLOtA&s=V3qpY7SnDSQ1QG3jCMYHHaIQ04tZLYdhILkVUs2NnW8&e=) AC Chat: Maryam Bakoshi: Dear all welcome to the NCSG PC Call on Tuesday 16 May 2017 at 1300 UTC Maryam Bakoshi: Welcme Joan Joan Kerr: Hello Maryam Bakoshi: Welcome Rafik Joan Kerr: Thansk Maryam Joan Kerr: Thanks Maryam Bakoshi: Welcome Stefania Cl?udio Lucena: yes Renata Aquino Ribeiro: y Stefania Milan: Hi Maryam, IIII I can hear you. Joan Kerr: Yes I can hear Cl?udio Lucena: Hello everyone Bruna Santos: hello, everyone Maryam Bakoshi: welcome all David Cake: Hello Stefania Milan: I am in a meeting I cannot skip at the Stockholm Internet Freedom, so I will keep my mic off and interact here Maryam Bakoshi: We will start in 1 minute Maryam Bakoshi: Thank you Stefaia Viviane Vinagre: Hello Everyone Rafik: did we lose maryam? Joan Kerr: audio? Edward Morris: No sound here Joan Kerr: Looks like it Stefania Milan: I cannot hear any sound Maryam Bakoshi: Hi all the document has been desynced Maryam Bakoshi: Stafania can you hear now? Viviane Vinagre: I'm finding he audio a little bit low Viviane Vinagre: the* Maryam Bakoshi: I have aske d for the volume to tbe incease Milton: hear you fine Malisa Richards: Hearing you clearly Stefania Milan: yes, Rafik, clear Stefania Milan: Thanks Rafik, what your provided was enough Edward Morris: Nothong to add here. THanks Rafik. Milton: what is in the GAC communique? Milton: what did they GNSO Council say about it in short summary? Edward Morris: There was a general comment that GAC advice has gone beyond their proper remit. Milton: ok, good Viviane Vinagre: I will have to go out for some minutes but I will be listening Viviane Vinagre: by headphones Rafik: https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-icann-board-25apr17-en.pdf Edward Morris: You covered it as far as I understand current status. Edward Morris: Thanks Edward Morris: Correct. Juan Manuel Rojas: Good day to all. Tapani Tarvainen: Sorry lost connection for a moment Tapani Tarvainen: Last draft has PC meeting on Tuesday at 13:30 Stephanie Perrin: Apologies for being late Poncelet Ileleji: Apologies am late Bruna Santos: I could really use the help as Im very new to this! As Rafik said, any help would be very nice! Viviane Vinagre: I could help Bruna, but I'm also new avri doria: as the groups co-chair, i am avaialble to answer any clarification questions people might have on the questions. Viviane Vinagre: Avri awesome! Stephanie Perrin: Thanks Bruna, we will jump in and comment, it is really helpful to have it started! Stephanie Perrin: Which one was that that Matt is working on Rafik? Bruna Santos: thank you Avri and Stephanie Stephanie Perrin: Thanks! Cl?udio Lucena 2: I'll join too Bruna Cl?udio Lucena 2: I'm joining Rafik Poncelet Ileleji: Will be Interested in this one Stephanie Perrin: I will contribute but am on deadline, cannot draft Bruna Santos: I can also contribute to Claudio's draft Renata Aquino Ribeiro: I'll also recommend helping on the questionnaire Viviane Vinagre: Sorry my net is going down Malisa Richards: I'll volunteer helping with the questionnaire Viviane Vinagre: Well, I'm free, so anyone that wants help with anything can ask me, again I'm new but I'm willing to help Renata Aquino Ribeiro: Malisa and Viviane many thanks :) Malisa Richards: you're welcome Renata Stephanie Perrin: exactly Stephanie Perrin: ok going to be a busy week Viviane Vinagre: Thanks Renata! Viviane Vinagre: You're amazing Renata Aquino Ribeiro: you're all amazing Tapani Tarvainen: Thank you Rafik! Poncelet Ileleji: +1 Renata Good one Bruna Santos: Thank you Rafik and everyone for this call! Renata Aquino Ribeiro: thanks Rafik Renata Aquino Ribeiro: and everyone bye Viviane Vinagre: Thak you Rafik! avri doria: bye and thanks to the council members who made it and stayed for the call. Joan Kerr: Bye all Cl?udio Lucena 2: Thank you Rafik. Poncelet Ileleji: Bye Bye Maryam Bakoshi: good bye all Maryam Bakoshi: Thank you! Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support ? NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) S: maryam.bakoshi.icann T: +44 7737698036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transcript_ncsgpc_160517.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 204248 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: agenda_ncsgpc_160517.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 273147 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 18 12:57:45 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 05:57:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CCT RT Draft Report Comment Message-ID: This is an exceptionally well written comment. I endorse it, and hope that we submit it as-is with the useful additions of Kathy and Milton. Thanks, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 18 18:35:36 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 11:35:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [DRAFT] Slides for Ideation Workshop Message-ID: Hi all, Here are some draft slides for the ideation workshop on 29 May to try to collect feedback from NCSG participants on the WhoIs conflicts with law comment. These are incomplete and will change, but if you have any edits/thoughts it would be great to receive them. I'm hoping to spend no more than 20 minutes on the background, and to leave 30 minutes for brainstorming, idea harvesting, and so forth. What do you think? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_IHTu1GKghkBXAxdM3r82s6gJyt8HQ6MYpH-j5Rtp4k/edit?usp=sharing Thanks, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 19 02:43:44 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:43:44 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG / Endorsment Message-ID: Hi all, this is a reminder to review draft made by Poncelet for NCSG on the Competition, Consumer, Consumer Choice review team report https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSy RpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit . Please review for proofreading or tidying-up the document. We have to reach consensus and endorse within the next 24hours in order to submit by the deadline. please express your support or objection. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 19 02:52:16 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:52:16 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEB iesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point of view on NCSG mailing list https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . I need to hear from others about their positions and also any suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc Hi all, Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEB iesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday 19th May. Best. Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 19 09:34:41 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:34:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [DRAFT] Slides for Ideation Workshop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks for sharing this. definitely, it doesn't look like an austere presentation :) can you add the end as annex maybe some references and links for those who to read more and look for details? btw why you are conceiving this as ideation, while it is about a public comment. maybe elaborating more about the goal? Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 0:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi all, > > Here are some draft slides for the ideation workshop on 29 May to try to > collect feedback from NCSG participants on the WhoIs conflicts with law > comment. These are incomplete and will change, but if you have any > edits/thoughts it would be great to receive them. I'm hoping to spend no > more than 20 minutes on the background, and to leave 30 minutes for > brainstorming, idea harvesting, and so forth. What do you think? > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_IHTu1GKghkBXAxdM3r82s6gJyt8HQ6 > MYpH-j5Rtp4k/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: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 19 10:47:03 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 09:47:03 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG / Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik I have not had time to read the report - but I have read through the comments which read well. I have made one or two minor edits. Matthew On 19/05/2017 01:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > this is a reminder to review draft made by Poncelet for NCSG on the > Competition, Consumer, Consumer Choice review team report > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit > . > Please review for proofreading or tidying-up the document. > > We have to reach consensus and endorse within the next 24hours in > order to submit by the deadline. please express your support or objection. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 19 11:51:24 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 04:51:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I would be interested in hearing it. Many thanks, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc Hi all, I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point of view on NCSG mailing list https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . I need to hear from others about their positions and also any suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc Hi all, Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday 19th May. Best. Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 19 12:06:44 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 05:06:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [DRAFT] Slides for Ideation Workshop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Thanks for your question. I would like this workshop to be something that any of our members can participate in, without having any background on the topic, while still being able to shape and contribute to the final output (being the comment itself). This obviously requires some structure to be useful. So in the first 20 minutes we will introduce new stimuli and triggers to excite people?s brains, and then turn the conversation over to them to share their thoughts. I will facilitate through open-ended questions and revise the comment after the call to take into account the input that is gathered. So I see this as a consultation session to understand the perspectives of those who participate on the call, and not outreach in any form. I'm not looking to provide people with reading material or a longer term commitment, because I don't think that is what we need on this issue. It's just a one hour call to gather views and to try to make the comment a bit more representative of the views of our members. Ideally I would run this exercise multiple times with different participants in different time zones... but for now this is just a pilot to see if it works. Does this make more sense? Thanks, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [DRAFT] Slides for Ideation Workshop Local Time: May 19, 2017 7:34 AM UTC Time: May 19, 2017 6:34 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Ayden F?rdeline ncsg-pc Hi Ayden, Thanks for sharing this. definitely, it doesn't look like an austere presentation :) can you add the end as annex maybe some references and links for those who to read more and look for details? btw why you are conceiving this as ideation, while it is about a public comment. maybe elaborating more about the goal? Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 0:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Hi all, Here are some draft slides for the ideation workshop on 29 May to try to collect feedback from NCSG participants on the WhoIs conflicts with law comment. These are incomplete and will change, but if you have any edits/thoughts it would be great to receive them. I'm hoping to spend no more than 20 minutes on the background, and to leave 30 minutes for brainstorming, idea harvesting, and so forth. What do you think? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_IHTu1GKghkBXAxdM3r82s6gJyt8HQ6MYpH-j5Rtp4k/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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 19 12:11:49 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 18:11:49 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, If we have overwhelming support for opposing the deferral, we would need a new comment. Anyone wants to volunteer for the drafting? Best. Rafik On May 19, 2017 5:51 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: Hi, My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I would be interested in hearing it. Many thanks, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc Hi all, I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblh euIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point of view on NCSG mailing list https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG- DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . I need to hear from others about their positions and also any suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc Hi all, Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheu IvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday 19th May. Best. Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 19 12:37:22 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 11:37:22 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations Message-ID: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> Hi all Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC Consultation page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en Consultation document: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf First draft of some initial comments here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. Thanks Matthew -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 19 12:45:33 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 11:45:33 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72ffd19e-c589-2134-a90c-631937442261@intpolicy.com> Ed made some valuable comments on this in a recent e-mail that I cannot put my finger on at the moment. On 19/05/2017 11:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > If we have overwhelming support for opposing the deferral, we would > need a new comment. Anyone wants to volunteer for the drafting? > > Best. > > Rafik > > > On May 19, 2017 5:51 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" > wrote: > > Hi, > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of > mandatory Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this > should happen, I would be interested in hearing it. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc > >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >> deferral >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his >> point of view on NCSG mailing list >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 >> >> . >> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have >> less than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> " >> > >, ncsg-pc >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not >> in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this >> topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is >> this Friday 19th May. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik > > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri May 19 13:50:14 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 06:50:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: <72ffd19e-c589-2134-a90c-631937442261@intpolicy.com> References: <72ffd19e-c589-2134-a90c-631937442261@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: <42d99aaba0d64c718e802e25107139c4@toast.net> Rafik, Matt, Ayden, all, I've put together an opposition comment for consideration for support, improvement and submission. I'm on the road and am having great difficulty uploading to Google docs. I've attached the comment to this e-mail as a Word doc. If someone could kindly upload this proposed comment to create a Google doc for editing purposes I'd be appreciative. A reminder that the deadline for submission is 23:59 UTC tonight. Thanks again to Arshad for all of his work on the comment. Kind Regards, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone ---------------------------------------- From: "Matthew Shears" Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:46 AM To: "Rafik Dammak" , "Ayden F?rdeline" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Ed made some valuable comments on this in a recent e-mail that I cannot put my finger on at the moment. On 19/05/2017 11:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ayden, If we have overwhelming support for opposing the deferral, we would need a new comment. Anyone wants to volunteer for the drafting? Best. Rafik On May 19, 2017 5:51 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: Hi, My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I would be interested in hearing it. Many thanks, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc Hi all, I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point of view on NCSG mailing list https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . I need to hear from others about their positions and also any suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc Hi all, Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday 19th May. Best. Rafik Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ccNSO.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 143645 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 19 13:53:57 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 06:53:57 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: <42d99aaba0d64c718e802e25107139c4@toast.net> References: <72ffd19e-c589-2134-a90c-631937442261@intpolicy.com> <42d99aaba0d64c718e802e25107139c4@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed, Thanks for drafting this. I have uploaded this to Google Docs per your request, and will review the content momentarily: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit?usp=sharing Many thanks, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 19, 2017 11:50 AM UTC Time: May 19, 2017 10:50 AM From: egmorris1 at toast.net To: Rafik Dammak , Ayden F?rdeline , Matthew Shears ncsg-pc Rafik, Matt, Ayden, all, I've put together an opposition comment for consideration for support, improvement and submission. I'm on the road and am having great difficulty uploading to Google docs. I've attached the comment to this e-mail as a Word doc. If someone could kindly upload this proposed comment to create a Google doc for editing purposes I'd be appreciative. A reminder that the deadline for submission is 23:59 UTC tonight. Thanks again to Arshad for all of his work on the comment. Kind Regards, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone --------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Matthew Shears" Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:46 AM To: "Rafik Dammak" , "Ayden F?rdeline" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Ed made some valuable comments on this in a recent e-mail that I cannot put my finger on at the moment. On 19/05/2017 11:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ayden, If we have overwhelming support for opposing the deferral, we would need a new comment. Anyone wants to volunteer for the drafting? Best. Rafik On May 19, 2017 5:51 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: Hi, My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I would be interested in hearing it. Many thanks, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc Hi all, I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point of view on NCSG mailing list https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . I need to hear from others about their positions and also any suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc Hi all, Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday 19th May. Best. Rafik 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 matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri May 19 13:58:50 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 11:58:50 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <72ffd19e-c589-2134-a90c-631937442261@intpolicy.com> <42d99aaba0d64c718e802e25107139c4@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, This was done in a rather rushed manner so I'm sure can be greatly improved. Thanks for uploading it. Best, Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 19 May 2017, at 11:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Ed, > > Thanks for drafting this. I have uploaded this to Google Docs per your request, and will review the content momentarily: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit?usp=sharing > > Many thanks, Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 11:50 AM >> UTC Time: May 19, 2017 10:50 AM >> From: egmorris1 at toast.net >> To: Rafik Dammak , Ayden F?rdeline , Matthew Shears >> ncsg-pc >> >> Rafik, Matt, Ayden, all, >> >> >> I've put together an opposition comment for consideration for support, improvement and submission. >> >> I'm on the road and am having great difficulty uploading to Google docs. I've attached the comment to this e-mail as a Word doc. If someone could kindly upload this proposed comment to create a Google doc for editing purposes I'd be appreciative. A reminder that the deadline for submission is 23:59 UTC tonight. >> >> Thanks again to Arshad for all of his work on the comment. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Ed Morris >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> From: "Matthew Shears" >> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:46 AM >> To: "Rafik Dammak" , "Ayden F?rdeline" >> Cc: "ncsg-pc" >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment >> >> Ed made some valuable comments on this in a recent e-mail that I cannot put my finger on at the moment. >> >> >>> On 19/05/2017 11:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> If we have overwhelming support for opposing the deferral, we would need a new comment. Anyone wants to volunteer for the drafting? >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> On May 19, 2017 5:51 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I would be interested in hearing it. >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment >>>> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. >>>> >>>> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point of view on NCSG mailing list https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >>>> >>>> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>> >>>> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. >>>> >>>> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday 19th May. >>>> >>>> Best. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri May 19 15:28:59 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:59 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: <42d99aaba0d64c718e802e25107139c4@toast.net> References: <72ffd19e-c589-2134-a90c-631937442261@intpolicy.com> <42d99aaba0d64c718e802e25107139c4@toast.net> Message-ID: I agree with the principle Ed is raising here, and I think it is important. However, I don't really want to annoy the CCNSO at this point (for reasons related to the RDS consultation going on right now), not that anyone really takes our comments all that seriously. Perhaps we could phrase it gently, pointing out that this is an important principle and there has to be an extremely important reason to flout it? (sorry have not got into the google doc yet....) stephanie On 2017-05-19 06:50, Edward Morris wrote: > Rafik, Matt, Ayden, all, > I've put together an opposition comment for consideration for support, > improvement and submission. > I'm on the road and am having great difficulty uploading to Google > docs. I've attached the comment to this e-mail as a Word doc. If > someone could kindly upload this proposed comment to create a Google > doc for editing purposes I'd be appreciative. A reminder that the > deadline for submission is 23:59 UTC tonight. > Thanks again to Arshad for all of his work on the comment. > Kind Regards, > Ed Morris > Sent from my iPhone > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Matthew Shears" > *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:46 AM > *To*: "Rafik Dammak" , "Ayden F?rdeline" > > *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" > *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / > Review&Endorsment > > Ed made some valuable comments on this in a recent e-mail that I > cannot put my finger on at the moment. > > On 19/05/2017 11:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Ayden, >> If we have overwhelming support for opposing the deferral, we would >> need a new comment. Anyone wants to volunteer for the drafting? >> Best. >> Rafik >> On May 19, 2017 5:51 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" > > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of >> mandatory Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this >> should happen, I would be interested in hearing it. >> >> Many thanks, >> Ayden >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>> Review&Endorsment >>> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> To: ncsg-pc > >>> Hi all, >>> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>> deferral >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>> . >>> >>> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his >>> point of view on NCSG mailing list >>> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 >>> >>> . >>> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the >>> NCSG comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have >>> less than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>> Best, >>> Rafik >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >> > >>> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>> " >>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>> > >>> Hi all, >>> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>> . >>> >>> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not >>> in order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this >>> topics and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is >>> this Friday 19th May. >>> Best. >>> Rafik >> >> >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Fri May 19 17:39:03 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 10:39:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> i also do not support postponement. avri On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I > would be interested in hearing it. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >> of view on NCSG mailing list >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> " >> > >, ncsg-pc >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >> 19th May. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 19 23:52:58 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 05:52:58 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> References: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all, so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : > > i also do not support postponement. > > avri > > > On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi, > > > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory > > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I > > would be interested in hearing it. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Ayden > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / > >> Review&Endorsment > >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM > >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM > >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > >> To: ncsg-pc > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review > >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing > >> iesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. > >> > >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point > >> of view on NCSG mailing list > >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . > >> > >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any > >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG > >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. > >> > >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less > >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >> > > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 > >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation > >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > >> " > >> >> >, ncsg-pc > >> > > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG > >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing > >> iesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. > >> > >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in > >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics > >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday > >> 19th May. > >> > >> Best. > >> > >> Rafik > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 20 00:00:36 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 06:00:36 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, by discussion in policy committee list, the position seems that we should oppose the ccNSO deferral. a new draft was made here and includes there the reason for rejecting the deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit Best, Rafik 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi all, > > Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG comment > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEB > iesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing. > > Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in order > to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics and > submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday 19th May. > > Best. > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 20 00:27:02 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:27:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> Message-ID: I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. Stephanie On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we > have the new draft here > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit > can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the > comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: > > > i also do not support postponement. > > avri > > > On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi, > > > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of > mandatory > > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should > happen, I > > would be interested in hearing it. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Ayden > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / > >> Review&Endorsment > >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM > >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM > >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > >> To: ncsg-pc > > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review > >> deferral > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing > > >> > >. > >> > >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his > point > >> of view on NCSG mailing list > >> > https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 > > . > >> > >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any > >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG > >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. > >> > >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have > less > >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > >> >> > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 > >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation > >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > >> >" > >> > >> >>, ncsg-pc > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG > >> comment > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing > > >> > >. > >> > >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in > >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this > topics > >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday > >> 19th May. > >> > >> Best. > >> > >> Rafik > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 20 00:28:53 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 06:28:53 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG / Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, the deadline is pretty close. the comment was edited with several suggestions from members following closely the issue. I interpret that we have support from Poncelet, Matt, Ayden, myself who reviewed and amended the draft. I also didn't see any objections made here or NCSG list. I would have preferred to get more responses from other members of Policy Committee regarding the endorsement but I understand that as a silent consent. I think we have a rough consensus here regarding the endorsement. I do think we have a substantive comment with several important suggestions to CCT RT and we need to submit our comment in due time to influence the process and be fair to those who worked in the draft. We may meet the CCT RT in Johannesburg, hopefully during NCSG PC session, and so we can discuss with them further. please find attached the version to be submitted, I tried to tidy-up. with no strong objections heard in next 3 hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG. Thanks again to Poncelet for volunteering to draft the comment and to all who reviewed and edited. Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 16:47 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > Hi Rafik > > I have not had time to read the report - but I have read through the > comments which read well. I have made one or two minor edits. > > Matthew > > On 19/05/2017 01:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > this is a reminder to review draft made by Poncelet for NCSG on the > Competition, Consumer, Consumer Choice review team report > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSy > RpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit . Please review for proofreading or tidying-up > the document. > > We have to reach consensus and endorse within the next 24hours in order to > submit by the deadline. please express your support or objection. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > > <#m_5389038518954082814_m_-39748126556819344_m_7074147189178353428_m_6728434123319615684_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCTRTInitialDraftCommentsforNCSG.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 236444 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 20 00:45:50 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 06:45:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the comment, I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the draft. if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. > > Stephanie > > On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have > the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit > can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment > in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : > >> >> i also do not support postponement. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory >> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I >> > would be interested in hearing it. >> > >> > Many thanks, >> > >> > Ayden >> > >> > >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> >> Review&Endorsment >> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxF >> qXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> >> > FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >> >> >> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 >> . >> >> >> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >> >> >> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > >> > >> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> >> " >> >> > >> >, ncsg-pc >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >> >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxF >> qXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> >> > FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >> >> >> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >> >> 19th May. >> >> >> >> Best. >> >> >> >> Rafik >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ccNSO.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 101643 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat May 20 00:49:41 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:49:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. Best wishes, Ayden F?rdeline Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the comment, I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the draft. if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. Stephanie On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : i also do not support postponement. avri On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I > would be interested in hearing it. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>> . >> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >> of view on NCSG mailing list >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------->> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>> " >> > >, ncsg-pc >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>> . >> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >> 19th May. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik > > >> _______________________________________________ > 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](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat May 20 00:53:13 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:53:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG / Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for tidying this up, Rafik. I support this comment, hope we send it as-is, and express my gratitude to Kathy and Milton, among the others, who made some substantive contributions towards it. Ayden F?rdeline Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:28 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, the deadline is pretty close. the comment was edited with several suggestions from members following closely the issue. I interpret that we have support from Poncelet, Matt, Ayden, myself who reviewed and amended the draft. I also didn't see any objections made here or NCSG list. I would have preferred to get more responses from other members of Policy Committee regarding the endorsement but I understand that as a silent consent. I think we have a rough consensus here regarding the endorsement. I do think we have a substantive comment with several important suggestions to CCT RT and we need to submit our comment in due time to influence the process and be fair to those who worked in the draft. We may meet the CCT RT in Johannesburg, hopefully during NCSG PC session, and so we can discuss with them further. please find attached the version to be submitted, I tried to tidy-up. with no strong objections heard in next 3 hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG. Thanks again to Poncelet for volunteering to draft the comment and to all who reviewed and edited. Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 16:47 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Hi Rafik I have not had time to read the report - but I have read through the comments which read well. I have made one or two minor edits. Matthew On 19/05/2017 01:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, this is a reminder to review draft made by Poncelet for NCSG on the Competition, Consumer, Consumer Choice review team report https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit . Please review for proofreading or tidying-up the document. We have to reach consensus and endorse within the next 24hours in order to submit by the deadline. please express your support or objection. Best, Rafik 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) #m_5389038518954082814_m_-39748126556819344_m_7074147189178353428_m_6728434123319615684_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2 ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987) Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 20 00:55:56 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 06:55:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks, I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits there? I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi Rafik, > > Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as > Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more > tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous > commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden F?rdeline > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > Thanks for the comment, > I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and > myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from > Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the > draft. > if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment > on behalf of NCSG (document attached). > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca>: > >> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >> >> Stephanie >> >> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have >> the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment >> in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >> >>> >>> i also do not support postponement. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory >>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I >>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>> > >>> > Many thanks, >>> > >>> > Ayden >>> > >>> > >>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>> >> Review&Endorsment >>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>> >> >>> >> Hi all, >>> >> >>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>> >> >> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>> >> >>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 >>> . >>> >> >>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>> >> >>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Rafik >>> >> >>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >> >> > >>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>> >> " >>> >> >> >> >, ncsg-pc >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Hi all, >>> >> >>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxF >>> qXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>> >> >> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>> >> >>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >>> >> 19th May. >>> >> >>> >> Best. >>> >> >>> >> Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Sat May 20 01:11:09 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 18:11:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> Message-ID: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. Thanks, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM To: "Ayden F?rdeline" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Hi Ayden, Thanks, I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits there? I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Hi Rafik, Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. Best wishes, Ayden F?rdeline Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the comment, I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the draft. if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. Stephanie On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : i also do not support postponement. avri On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I > would be interested in hearing it. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >> of view on NCSG mailing list >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> " >> > >, ncsg-pc >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >> 19th May. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Sat May 20 02:00:30 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 00:00:30 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG / Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Rafik, I wish to thank all who commented, edited and reviewed text. Highly appreciated. I think the document is good to go. Kind Regards On 19 May 2017 at 22:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > the deadline is pretty close. the comment was edited with several > suggestions from members following closely the issue. > I interpret that we have support from Poncelet, Matt, Ayden, myself who > reviewed and amended the draft. I also didn't see any objections made here > or NCSG list. I would have preferred to get more responses from other > members of Policy Committee regarding the endorsement but I understand that > as a silent consent. I think we have a rough consensus here regarding the > endorsement. > > I do think we have a substantive comment with several important > suggestions to CCT RT and we need to submit our comment in due time to > influence the process and be fair to those who worked in the draft. We may > meet the CCT RT in Johannesburg, hopefully during NCSG PC session, and so > we can discuss with them further. > > please find attached the version to be submitted, I tried to tidy-up. with > no strong objections heard in next 3 hours, I will submit the comment on > behalf of NCSG. Thanks again to Poncelet for volunteering to draft the > comment and to all who reviewed and edited. > > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > 2017-05-19 16:47 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > >> Hi Rafik >> >> I have not had time to read the report - but I have read through the >> comments which read well. I have made one or two minor edits. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 19/05/2017 01:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> this is a reminder to review draft made by Poncelet for NCSG on the >> Competition, Consumer, Consumer Choice review team report >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSy >> RpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit . Please review for proofreading or tidying-up >> the document. >> >> We have to reach consensus and endorse within the next 24hours in order >> to submit by the deadline. please express your support or objection. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Virus-free. >> www.avg.com >> >> <#m_7680196557088735251_m_5389038518954082814_m_-39748126556819344_m_7074147189178353428_m_6728434123319615684_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 20 09:56:04 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 15:56:04 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> References: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed, Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can send the comment this weekend after that. Best. Rafik On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. Thanks, Ed ------------------------------ *From*: "Rafik Dammak" *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Hi Ayden, Thanks, I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits there? I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > > Hi Rafik, > > Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as > Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more > tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous > commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden F?rdeline > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > Thanks for the comment, > I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and > myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from > Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the > draft. > if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment > on behalf of NCSG (document attached). > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin o.ca>: >> >> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >> >> Stephanie >> >> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have >> the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment >> in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>> >>> >>> i also do not support postponement. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory >>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I >>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>> > >>> > Many thanks, >>> > >>> > Ayden >>> > >>> > >>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>> >> Review&Endorsment >>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>> >> >>> >> Hi all, >>> >> >>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>> >> >> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>> >> >>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 >>> . >>> >> >>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>> >> >>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Rafik >>> >> >>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >> >> > >>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>> >> " >>> >> >> >> >, ncsg-pc >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Hi all, >>> >> >>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxF >>> qXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>> >> >> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>> >> >>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >>> >> 19th May. >>> >> >>> >> Best. >>> >> >>> >> Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 22 03:01:56 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 09:01:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review Message-ID: Hi all, Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en . The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to do so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, please add wording and edits when you make comments. looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 22 03:03:04 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 09:03:04 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <215fa8d5-50ca-4e43-6d14-ba779d7fadef@apc.org> <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi all, please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Ed, > > Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other > changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can > send the comment this weekend after that. > > Best. > > Rafik > > On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: > > Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, > > I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: > unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps > more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit > difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome > further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. > > Thanks, > > Ed > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM > *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" > *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" > *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / > Review&Endorsment > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks, > I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really > respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can > propose some edits there? > I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get > some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but >> as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more >> tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous >> commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> Thanks for the comment, >> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and >> myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from >> Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the >> draft. >> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment >> on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin > o.ca>: >>> >>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we >>> have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >>> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the >>> comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>> >>>> >>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory >>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I >>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>> > >>>> > Many thanks, >>>> > >>>> > Ayden >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >> >>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>> >> >>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee8 >>>> 0ad7.1705 . >>>> >> >>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>> >> >>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best, >>>> >> >>>> >> Rafik >>>> >> >>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>> >> > >>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>> >> " >>>> >> >>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxF >>>> qXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >> >>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>> >> >>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >>>> >> 19th May. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best. >>>> >> >>>> >> Rafik >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> ______________________________ _________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Mon May 22 12:31:22 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 11:31:22 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi all Another consultation with a short deadline. Thanks in advance for your inputs. Matthew On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Hi all > > Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC > > Consultation page: > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en > > Consultation document: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf > > First draft of some initial comments here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing > > Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. > > Thanks > > Matthew > > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon May 22 15:47:33 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 08:47:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> Message-ID: Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the Google Doc to take them into account? Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Edward Morris Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc Hi all, please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Hi Ed, Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can send the comment this weekend after that. Best. Rafik On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. Thanks, Ed --------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM To: "Ayden F?rdeline" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Hi Ayden, Thanks, I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits there? I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Hi Rafik, Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. Best wishes, Ayden F?rdeline Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the comment, I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the draft. if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. Stephanie On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : i also do not support postponement. avri On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I > would be interested in hearing it. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >> of view on NCSG mailing list >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> " >> > >, ncsg-pc >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >> 19th May. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 23 02:22:58 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 08:22:58 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> Message-ID: hi Ayden, Thanks for the review. I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next 12hours, I would submit the comment We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability by this Friday. Best, Rafik 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the > language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there > are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been > resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the > Google Doc to take them into account? > > Best wishes, Ayden > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / > Review&Endorsment > Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM > UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: Edward Morris > Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc > > Hi all, > > please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the > wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi Ed, >> >> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other >> changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can >> send the comment this weekend after that. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik >> >> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: >> >> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >> >> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: >> unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps >> more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit >> difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome >> further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" >> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks, >> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot >> really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she >> can propose some edits there? >> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get >> some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but >>> as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more >>> tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous >>> commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> Thanks for the comment, >>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and >>> myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from >>> Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the >>> draft. >>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the >>> comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>> >>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> >>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we >>>> have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >>>> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the >>>> comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> > Hi, >>>>> > >>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of >>>>> mandatory >>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, >>>>> I >>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>> > >>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>> > >>>>> > Ayden >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >> >>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee8 >>>>> 0ad7.1705 . >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Rafik >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>> >> > >>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>> >> " >>>>> >> >>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >> >>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Rafik >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > 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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________ _________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 23 02:40:56 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 08:40:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi Matt, thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the draft, in order for the policy committee to review and endorse by Friday 26th May, Best, Rafik 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > Hi all > > Another consultation with a short deadline. > > Thanks in advance for your inputs. > > Matthew > > On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Hi all > > Another public comment - *due soon*: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC > > Consultation page: > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en > > Consultation document: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct- > ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf > > First draft of some initial comments here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE > 54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing > > Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. > > Thanks > > Matthew > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Tue May 23 14:15:32 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 13:15:32 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> Message-ID: <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> Hi These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. Matthew On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi Ayden, > > Thanks for the review. > I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to > do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the > question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are > they critical to the current comment? I would wait for their > resolution but we are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to > miss a public comment. > > I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite > urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for > Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if > she can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection > in next 12hours, I would submit the comment > > We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability > by this Friday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: > > Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to > the language now, and support the submission of this comment. > However, there are still some very good comments on the Google Doc > that have not been resolved. Could the author of these comments > kindly consider revising the Google Doc to take them into account? > > Best wishes, Ayden > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: Edward Morris > >> Ayden F?rdeline > >, ncsg-pc > > >> >> Hi all, >> >> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine >> with the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi Ed, >> >> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see >> if other changes are needed or if they are fine with the >> current version. We can send the comment this weekend after that. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik >> >> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" > > wrote: >> >> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >> >> I just went into the document and tried to soften the >> language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I >> deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps >> unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a >> bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd >> certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if >> folks felt they were needed. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > > >> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" > > >> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" > > >> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review >> deferral / Review&Endorsment >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks, >> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me >> and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they >> were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits >> there? >> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission >> if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to >> change the tone. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >> >: >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment >> of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it >> would be better if we are slightly more tactful in >> the comment that we send through. I also note that an >> anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the >> Google Doc. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak >> > > wrote: >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> Thanks for the comment, >>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, >>> Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the >>> comment with no objection. also, support from Avri >>> as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus >>> to send the draft. >>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I >>> will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document >>> attached). >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>> >> >: >>> >>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will >>> support it. >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> >>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> so I see there is more endorsement for >>>> opposing the deferral and we have the new draft >>>> here >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>> >>>> can you please express your position quickly so >>>> we can submit the comment in due time. I will >>>> also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria >>>> >: >>>> >>>> >>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support >>>> the postponement of mandatory >>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason >>>> for why this should happen, I >>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>> > >>>> > Many thanks, >>>> > >>>> > Ayden >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of >>>> CCNSO review deferral / >>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by >>>> Arshad about ccNSO review >>>> >> deferral >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >. >>>> >> >>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the >>>> content and explained his point >>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>> >> >>>> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 >>>> >>>> . >>>> >> >>>> >> I need to hear from others about their >>>> positions and also any >>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 >>>> opposite views in the NCSG >>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual >>>> position for NCSG here. >>>> >> >>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the >>>> 19th May and so we have less >>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way >>>> to move forward. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best, >>>> >> >>>> >> Rafik >>>> >> >>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review >>>> deferral / Consultation >>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>> >>>> >> >>> >" >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>, >>>> ncsg-pc >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his >>>> draft for NCSG >>>> >> comment >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >. >>>> >> >>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, >>>> express your support or not in >>>> >> order to assess what we have the common >>>> NCSG position on this topics >>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for >>>> submission is this Friday >>>> >> 19th May. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best. >>>> >> >>>> >> Rafik >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> ______________________________ _________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Tue May 23 14:20:12 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 13:20:12 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. Matthew On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Hi > > These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to > be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I > do believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. > > Matthew > > > On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks for the review. >> I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to >> do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about >> the question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much >> are they critical to the current comment? I would wait for their >> resolution but we are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to >> miss a public comment. >> >> I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite >> urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting >> for Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version >> and if she can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no >> objection in next 12hours, I would submit the comment >> >> We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC >> accountability by this Friday. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline > >: >> >> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to >> the language now, and support the submission of this comment. >> However, there are still some very good comments on the Google >> Doc that have not been resolved. Could the author of these >> comments kindly consider revising the Google Doc to take them >> into account? >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>> Review&Endorsment >>> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >>> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> To: Edward Morris > >>> Ayden F?rdeline >> >, ncsg-pc >> > >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine >>> with the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: >>> >>> Hi Ed, >>> >>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and >>> see if other changes are needed or if they are fine with the >>> current version. We can send the comment this weekend after >>> that. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>> >>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the >>> language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I >>> deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps >>> unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a >>> bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd >>> certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if >>> folks felt they were needed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >> > >>> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" >> > >>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >> > >>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review >>> deferral / Review&Endorsment >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks, >>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me >>> and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they >>> were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits >>> there? >>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the >>> submission if we can get some wording and edits to be >>> considered to change the tone. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >>> >: >>> >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment >>> of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think >>> it would be better if we are slightly more tactful >>> in the comment that we send through. I also note >>> that an anonymous commenter left some useful >>> comments in the Google Doc. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak >>> >> > wrote: >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, >>>> Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the >>>> comment with no objection. also, support from Avri >>>> as an observer. I interpret this as having >>>> consensus to send the draft. >>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I >>>> will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document >>>> attached). >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>> >: >>>> >>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will >>>> support it. >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for >>>>> opposing the deferral and we have the new >>>>> draft here >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>> >>>>> can you please express your position quickly >>>>> so we can submit the comment in due time. I >>>>> will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> > Hi, >>>>> > >>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support >>>>> the postponement of mandatory >>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason >>>>> for why this should happen, I >>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>> > >>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>> > >>>>> > Ayden >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of >>>>> CCNSO review deferral / >>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by >>>>> Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>> >> deferral >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the >>>>> content and explained his point >>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>> >> >>>>> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their >>>>> positions and also any >>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 >>>>> opposite views in the NCSG >>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual >>>>> position for NCSG here. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the >>>>> 19th May and so we have less >>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a >>>>> way to move forward. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Rafik >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review >>>>> deferral / Consultation >>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >" >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>, >>>>> ncsg-pc >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his >>>>> draft for NCSG >>>>> >> comment >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, >>>>> express your support or not in >>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common >>>>> NCSG position on this topics >>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline >>>>> for submission is this Friday >>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Rafik >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ______________________________ _________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >> >> >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> >> >> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 23 15:55:27 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 21:55:27 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi, attached the latest version after Matt edits. I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the deadline. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not > see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. > > Matthew > > On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Hi > > These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to be > removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do > believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. > > Matthew > > On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > hi Ayden, > > Thanks for the review. > I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do > the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the > question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they > critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we > are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. > > I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite urgent. I > understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for Stephanie to > confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she can resolve > her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next 12hours, I > would submit the comment > > We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability by > this Friday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the >> language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there >> are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been >> resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the >> Google Doc to take them into account? >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: Edward Morris >> Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the >> wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> Hi Ed, >>> >>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other >>> changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can >>> send the comment this weekend after that. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>> >>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: >>> unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps >>> more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit >>> difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome >>> further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" >>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>> Review&Endorsment >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks, >>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot >>> really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she >>> can propose some edits there? >>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get >>> some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>>> Hi Rafik, >>>> >>>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but >>>> as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more >>>> tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous >>>> commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and >>>> myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from >>>> Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the >>>> draft. >>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the >>>> comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>>> >>>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie >>>>> >>>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we >>>>> have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >>>>> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the >>>>> comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of >>>>>> mandatory >>>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should >>>>>> happen, I >>>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Ayden >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >> >>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his >>>>>> point >>>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee8 >>>>>> 0ad7.1705 . >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have >>>>>> less >>>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>> >> " >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >> >>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >>>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this >>>>>> topics >>>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >>>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > 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 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > > <#m_-3194188513193061502_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ccNSO.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 65259 bytes Desc: not available URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Tue May 23 16:08:42 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 14:08:42 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Hi Rafik, Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - Google docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting the revised comment ASAP. Best, Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi, > > attached the latest version after Matt edits. > I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the deadline. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >> I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. >> >> Matthew >> >>> On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. >>> Matthew >>> >>>> On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the review. >>>> I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. >>>> >>>> I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next 12hours, I would submit the comment >>>> >>>> We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability by this Friday. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the Google Doc to take them into account? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment >>>>>> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >>>>>> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>> To: Edward Morris >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>>>> Hi Ed, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can send the comment this weekend after that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Rafik Dammak" >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>>>>>> To: "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>>>>> Cc: "ncsg-pc" >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits there? >>>>>>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>>>>>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the draft. >>>>>>>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : >>>>>>>>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>>>>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>>>>>>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory >>>>>>>>>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I >>>>>>>>>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Ayden >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>>>>>>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>> >> . >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >>>>>>>>>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>>>>>>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>>>>>>>>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >>>>>>>>>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>>>>>>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> >> " >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>>>>>>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>> >> . >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >>>>>>>>>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >>>>>>>>>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >>>>>>>>>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Best. >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> > 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________ >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> -- >>> Matthew Shears >>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Tue May 23 16:42:25 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 13:42:25 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Message-ID: Hello Rafik, Thanks for sharing, and thanks Matthew for the great work, I definitely endorse the revised comments also. Kind Regards Poncelet On 23 May 2017 at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - Google > docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting the > revised comment ASAP. > > Best, > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi, > > attached the latest version after Matt edits. > I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the > deadline. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > >> I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not >> see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to be >> removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do >> believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks for the review. >> I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do >> the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the >> question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they >> critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we >> are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. >> >> I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite urgent. >> I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for Stephanie to >> confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she can resolve >> her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next 12hours, I >> would submit the comment >> >> We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability by >> this Friday. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the >>> language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there >>> are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been >>> resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the >>> Google Doc to take them into account? >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>> Review&Endorsment >>> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >>> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> To: Edward Morris >>> Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the >>> wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>>> Hi Ed, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other >>>> changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can >>>> send the comment this weekend after that. >>>> >>>> Best. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>>> >>>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: >>>> unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps >>>> more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit >>>> difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome >>>> further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>>> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>>> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>> Review&Endorsment >>>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot >>>> really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she >>>> can propose some edits there? >>>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get >>>> some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, >>>>> but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly >>>>> more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an >>>>> anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and >>>>> myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from >>>>> Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the >>>>> draft. >>>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the >>>>> comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>>>> >>>>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we >>>>>> have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >>>>>> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the >>>>>> comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of >>>>>>> mandatory >>>>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should >>>>>>> happen, I >>>>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Ayden >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his >>>>>>> point >>>>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee8 >>>>>>> 0ad7.1705 . >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>>>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have >>>>>>> less >>>>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>> >> " >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this >>>>>>> topics >>>>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >>>>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Best. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> > 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 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> Virus-free. >> www.avg.com >> >> <#m_6218083175456400569_m_-3194188513193061502_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >> >> -- >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 23 17:22:48 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 23:22:48 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi, thanks for the support Poncelet, I think we have now Ed, Ayden, Matt, Poncelet, myself and with no objection during the last 12hours. I think we have a consensus and I will submit the comment. I would have preferred that worked out this quickly but acknowledge that we needed to resolve any concern or comments. we have 2 comments to work on this week but then waiting few weeks till the next one. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 22:42 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : > Hello Rafik, > > Thanks for sharing, and thanks Matthew for the great work, I definitely > endorse the revised comments also. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 23 May 2017 at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote: > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - Google >> docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting the >> revised comment ASAP. >> >> Best, >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> attached the latest version after Matt edits. >> I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the >> deadline. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >> >>> I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not >>> see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to >>> be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do >>> believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks for the review. >>> I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do >>> the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the >>> question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they >>> critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we >>> are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. >>> >>> I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite urgent. >>> I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for Stephanie to >>> confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she can resolve >>> her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next 12hours, I >>> would submit the comment >>> >>> We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability >>> by this Friday. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>>> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the >>>> language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there >>>> are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been >>>> resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the >>>> Google Doc to take them into account? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>> Review&Endorsment >>>> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >>>> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> To: Edward Morris >>>> Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the >>>> wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>> >>>>> Hi Ed, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other >>>>> changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can >>>>> send the comment this weekend after that. >>>>> >>>>> Best. >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>>>> >>>>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: >>>>> unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps >>>>> more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit >>>>> difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome >>>>> further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>>>> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >>>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>> Review&Endorsment >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot >>>>> really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she >>>>> can propose some edits there? >>>>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can >>>>> get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, >>>>>> but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly >>>>>> more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an >>>>>> anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak < >>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and >>>>>> myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from >>>>>> Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the >>>>>> draft. >>>>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the >>>>>> comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we >>>>>>> have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >>>>>>> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the >>>>>>> comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of >>>>>>>> mandatory >>>>>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should >>>>>>>> happen, I >>>>>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Ayden >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his >>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee8 >>>>>>>> 0ad7.1705 . >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>>>>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have >>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>>> >> " >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this >>>>>>>> topics >>>>>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this >>>>>>>> Friday >>>>>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Best. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > 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 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Virus-free. >>> www.avg.com >>> >>> <#m_-8984286797989427068_m_441143229731668018_m_6218083175456400569_m_-3194188513193061502_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ccNSO.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 65259 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 24 02:14:35 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 08:14:35 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi all, I submitted the comment but the mail address for the public forum was bouncing. so I contacted the ICANN staff responsible for that public consultation and he is confirming if the comment will be published online and included in the staff report. I want really to stress and highlight that we may sometimes submit few days after the deadline but we cannot offer to do that all the time. We have currently the NCSG response to CC2 and PC should submit by Tuesday. otherwise, we will miss an opportunity to give input to the subsequent procedures working group. We also have the SO/AC accountability comment to review and endorse. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 23:22 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi, > > thanks for the support Poncelet, I think we have now Ed, Ayden, Matt, > Poncelet, myself and with no objection during the last 12hours. I think we > have a consensus and I will submit the comment. I would have preferred that > worked out this quickly but acknowledge that we needed to resolve any > concern or comments. > we have 2 comments to work on this week but then waiting few weeks till > the next one. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2017-05-23 22:42 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : > >> Hello Rafik, >> >> Thanks for sharing, and thanks Matthew for the great work, I definitely >> endorse the revised comments also. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 23 May 2017 at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote: >> >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - Google >>> docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting the >>> revised comment ASAP. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> attached the latest version after Matt edits. >>> I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the >>> deadline. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >>> >>>> I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not >>>> see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to >>>> be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do >>>> believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the review. >>>> I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do >>>> the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the >>>> question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they >>>> critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we >>>> are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. >>>> >>>> I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite >>>> urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for >>>> Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she >>>> can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next >>>> 12hours, I would submit the comment >>>> >>>> We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability >>>> by this Friday. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>> >>>>> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the >>>>> language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there >>>>> are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been >>>>> resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the >>>>> Google Doc to take them into account? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>> Review&Endorsment >>>>> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >>>>> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> To: Edward Morris >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with >>>>> the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ed, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if >>>>>> other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We >>>>>> can send the comment this weekend after that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: >>>>>> unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps >>>>>> more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit >>>>>> difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome >>>>>> further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>>>>> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>> Review&Endorsment >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot >>>>>> really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she >>>>>> can propose some edits there? >>>>>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can >>>>>> get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, >>>>>>> but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly >>>>>>> more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an >>>>>>> anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak < >>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>>>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and >>>>>>> myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from >>>>>>> Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the >>>>>>> draft. >>>>>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the >>>>>>> comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and >>>>>>>> we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >>>>>>>> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>>>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the >>>>>>>> comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of >>>>>>>>> mandatory >>>>>>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should >>>>>>>>> happen, I >>>>>>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Ayden >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>>>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>>>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>>>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his >>>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee8 >>>>>>>>> 0ad7.1705 . >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>>>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the >>>>>>>>> NCSG >>>>>>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have >>>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>>>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>>>> >> " >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>>>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or >>>>>>>>> not in >>>>>>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this >>>>>>>>> topics >>>>>>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this >>>>>>>>> Friday >>>>>>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Best. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> > 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 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Virus-free. >>>> www.avg.com >>>> >>>> <#m_4489876324893618997_m_-8984286797989427068_m_441143229731668018_m_6218083175456400569_m_-3194188513193061502_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Wed May 24 04:14:05 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 21:14:05 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, If that assurance was given I'd suggest you may want to contact the staff member involved and request that the staff report be amended to include our comments. The initial report without our contribution has been completed and posted online: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ccnso-review-deferral-22may17-en.pdf . Thanks, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 12:15 AM To: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Hi all, I submitted the comment but the mail address for the public forum was bouncing. so I contacted the ICANN staff responsible for that public consultation and he is confirming if the comment will be published online and included in the staff report. I want really to stress and highlight that we may sometimes submit few days after the deadline but we cannot offer to do that all the time. We have currently the NCSG response to CC2 and PC should submit by Tuesday. otherwise, we will miss an opportunity to give input to the subsequent procedures working group. We also have the SO/AC accountability comment to review and endorse. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 23:22 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Hi, thanks for the support Poncelet, I think we have now Ed, Ayden, Matt, Poncelet, myself and with no objection during the last 12hours. I think we have a consensus and I will submit the comment. I would have preferred that worked out this quickly but acknowledge that we needed to resolve any concern or comments. we have 2 comments to work on this week but then waiting few weeks till the next one. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 22:42 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : Hello Rafik, Thanks for sharing, and thanks Matthew for the great work, I definitely endorse the revised comments also. Kind Regards Poncelet On 23 May 2017 at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote: Hi Rafik, Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - Google docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting the revised comment ASAP. Best, Ed Sent from my iPhone On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, attached the latest version after Matt edits. I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the deadline. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. Matthew On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: Hi These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. Matthew On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: hi Ayden, Thanks for the review. I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next 12hours, I would submit the comment We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability by this Friday. Best, Rafik 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the Google Doc to take them into account? Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Edward Morris Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc Hi all, please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Hi Ed, Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can send the comment this weekend after that. Best. Rafik On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. Thanks, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM To: "Ayden F?rdeline" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Hi Ayden, Thanks, I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits there? I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Hi Rafik, Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. Best wishes, Ayden F?rdeline Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the comment, I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the draft. if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. Stephanie On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : i also do not support postponement. avri On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I > would be interested in hearing it. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >> of view on NCSG mailing list >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> " >> > >, ncsg-pc >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >> 19th May. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 24 08:48:42 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:48:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed, the email address allocated for the public comment was disabled when staff report was put online. I am already following up with Lars in order to get our comment included. I really wanted to stress such drawback so everyone can appreciate how much it is critical to submitting around the deadline. that needs everyone participation within the policy committee. I will follow-up soon on ideas how to improve things in term of policy committee functioning. Best, Rafik 2017-05-24 10:14 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > Hi Rafik, > > If that assurance was given I'd suggest you may want to contact the staff > member involved and request that the staff report be amended to include > our comments. The initial report without our contribution has been > completed and posted online: https://www.icann.org/ > en/system/files/files/report-comments-ccnso-review-deferral-22may17-en.pdf > . > > Thanks, > > Ed > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > *Sent*: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 12:15 AM > *To*: "ncsg-pc" > > *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / > Review&Endorsment > > Hi all, > > I submitted the comment but the mail address for the public forum was > bouncing. so I contacted the ICANN staff responsible for that public > consultation and he is confirming if the comment will be published online > and included in the staff report. > > I want really to stress and highlight that we may sometimes submit few > days after the deadline but we cannot offer to do that all the time. We > have currently the NCSG response to CC2 and PC should submit by Tuesday. > otherwise, we will miss an opportunity to give input to the subsequent > procedures working group. > We also have the SO/AC accountability comment to review and endorse. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-23 23:22 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks for the support Poncelet, I think we have now Ed, Ayden, Matt, >> Poncelet, myself and with no objection during the last 12hours. I think we >> have a consensus and I will submit the comment. I would have preferred that >> worked out this quickly but acknowledge that we needed to resolve any >> concern or comments. >> we have 2 comments to work on this week but then waiting few weeks till >> the next one. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2017-05-23 22:42 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : >>> >>> Hello Rafik, >>> >>> Thanks for sharing, and thanks Matthew for the great work, I definitely >>> endorse the revised comments also. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> Poncelet >>> >>> On 23 May 2017 at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Rafik, >>>> >>>> Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - >>>> Google docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting >>>> the revised comment ASAP. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> attached the latest version after Matt edits. >>>> I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the >>>> deadline. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >>>>> >>>>> I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did >>>>> not see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. >>>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to >>>>> be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do >>>>> believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. >>>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the review. >>>>> I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to >>>>> do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the >>>>> question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they >>>>> critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we >>>>> are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. >>>>> >>>>> I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite >>>>> urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for >>>>> Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she >>>>> can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next >>>>> 12hours, I would submit the comment >>>>> >>>>> We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability >>>>> by this Friday. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the >>>>>> language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there >>>>>> are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been >>>>>> resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the >>>>>> Google Doc to take them into account? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>> Review&Endorsment >>>>>> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >>>>>> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>> To: Edward Morris >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with >>>>>> the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ed, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if >>>>>>> other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We >>>>>>> can send the comment this weekend after that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a >>>>>>> bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and >>>>>>> perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's >>>>>>> a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly >>>>>>> welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>>>>>> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot >>>>>>> really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she >>>>>>> can propose some edits there? >>>>>>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can >>>>>>> get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, >>>>>>>> but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly >>>>>>>> more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an >>>>>>>> anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak < >>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>>>>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie >>>>>>>> and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from >>>>>>>> Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the >>>>>>>> draft. >>>>>>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the >>>>>>>> comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and >>>>>>>>> we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >>>>>>>>> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>>>>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the >>>>>>>>> comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of >>>>>>>>>> mandatory >>>>>>>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should >>>>>>>>>> happen, I >>>>>>>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Ayden >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>>>>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>>>>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>>>>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=s >>>>>>>>>> haring >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his >>>>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee8 >>>>>>>>>> 0ad7.1705 . >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>>>>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the >>>>>>>>>> NCSG >>>>>>>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we >>>>>>>>>> have less >>>>>>>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>>>>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>>>>> >> " >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>>>>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=s >>>>>>>>>> haring >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or >>>>>>>>>> not in >>>>>>>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this >>>>>>>>>> topics >>>>>>>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this >>>>>>>>>> Friday >>>>>>>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Best. >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> > 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 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Virus-free. >>>>> www.avg.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>> Coordinator >>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>> The Gambia, West Africa >>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>> Skype: pons_utd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>> www.waigf.org >>> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>> * >>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Wed May 24 12:07:40 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 10:07:40 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Message-ID: <925D6CB5-AB87-480C-A143-00A1803BE618@toast.net> Thanks Rafik. Sent from my iPhone > On 24 May 2017, at 06:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ed, > > the email address allocated for the public comment was disabled when staff report was put online. I am already following up with Lars in order to get our comment included. > I really wanted to stress such drawback so everyone can appreciate how much it is critical to submitting around the deadline. that needs everyone participation within the policy committee. > I will follow-up soon on ideas how to improve things in term of policy committee functioning. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-24 10:14 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : >> Hi Rafik, >> >> If that assurance was given I'd suggest you may want to contact the staff member involved and request that the staff report be amended to include our comments. The initial report without our contribution has been completed and posted online: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ccnso-review-deferral-22may17-en.pdf . >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> From: "Rafik Dammak" >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 12:15 AM >> To: "ncsg-pc" >> >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment >> >> Hi all, >> >> I submitted the comment but the mail address for the public forum was bouncing. so I contacted the ICANN staff responsible for that public consultation and he is confirming if the comment will be published online and included in the staff report. >> >> I want really to stress and highlight that we may sometimes submit few days after the deadline but we cannot offer to do that all the time. We have currently the NCSG response to CC2 and PC should submit by Tuesday. otherwise, we will miss an opportunity to give input to the subsequent procedures working group. >> We also have the SO/AC accountability comment to review and endorse. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-23 23:22 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thanks for the support Poncelet, I think we have now Ed, Ayden, Matt, Poncelet, myself and with no objection during the last 12hours. I think we have a consensus and I will submit the comment. I would have preferred that worked out this quickly but acknowledge that we needed to resolve any concern or comments. >>> we have 2 comments to work on this week but then waiting few weeks till the next one. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2017-05-23 22:42 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : >>>> >>>> Hello Rafik, >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing, and thanks Matthew for the great work, I definitely endorse the revised comments also. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> >>>> Poncelet >>>> >>>>> On 23 May 2017 at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - Google docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting the revised comment ASAP. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> attached the latest version after Matt edits. >>>>>> I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the deadline. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matthew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Matthew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>> hi Ayden, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the review. >>>>>>>>> I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next 12hours, I would submit the comment >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability by this Friday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the Google Doc to take them into account? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> To: Edward Morris >>>>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can send the comment this weekend after that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Rafik Dammak" >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "ncsg-pc" >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits there? >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the draft. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ayden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>>>>> +447712472987 >>>>>>>> Skype:mshears >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>>>> +447712472987 >>>>>>> Skype:mshears >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>>> Coordinator >>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>>> The Gambia, West Africa >>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>>> Skype: pons_utd >>>> www.ymca.gm >>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>>> www.waigf.org >>>> www,insistglobal.com >>>> www.npoc.org >>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 24 12:10:46 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 05:10:46 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, I look forward to hearing your ideas as to how we might be able to improve the PC's operations. I agree that we need to do a better job at adhering to deadlines. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 24, 2017 6:48 AM UTC Time: May 24, 2017 5:48 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Edward Morris ncsg-pc Hi Ed, the email address allocated for the public comment was disabled when staff report was put online. I am already following up with Lars in order to get our comment included. I really wanted to stress such drawback so everyone can appreciate how much it is critical to submitting around the deadline. that needs everyone participation within the policy committee. I will follow-up soon on ideas how to improve things in term of policy committee functioning. Best, Rafik 2017-05-24 10:14 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : Hi Rafik, If that assurance was given I'd suggest you may want to contact the staff member involved and request that the staff report be amended to include our comments. The initial report without our contribution has been completed and posted online: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ccnso-review-deferral-22may17-en.pdf . Thanks, Ed --------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 12:15 AM To: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Hi all, I submitted the comment but the mail address for the public forum was bouncing. so I contacted the ICANN staff responsible for that public consultation and he is confirming if the comment will be published online and included in the staff report. I want really to stress and highlight that we may sometimes submit few days after the deadline but we cannot offer to do that all the time. We have currently the NCSG response to CC2 and PC should submit by Tuesday. otherwise, we will miss an opportunity to give input to the subsequent procedures working group. We also have the SO/AC accountability comment to review and endorse. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 23:22 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Hi, thanks for the support Poncelet, I think we have now Ed, Ayden, Matt, Poncelet, myself and with no objection during the last 12hours. I think we have a consensus and I will submit the comment. I would have preferred that worked out this quickly but acknowledge that we needed to resolve any concern or comments. we have 2 comments to work on this week but then waiting few weeks till the next one. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 22:42 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : Hello Rafik, Thanks for sharing, and thanks Matthew for the great work, I definitely endorse the revised comments also. Kind Regards Poncelet On 23 May 2017 at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote: Hi Rafik, Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - Google docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting the revised comment ASAP. Best, Ed Sent from my iPhone On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, attached the latest version after Matt edits. I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the deadline. Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did not see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. Matthew On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: Hi These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them to be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. Matthew On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: hi Ayden, Thanks for the review. I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next 12hours, I would submit the comment We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC accountability by this Friday. Best, Rafik 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the Google Doc to take them into account? Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Edward Morris Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc Hi all, please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Hi Ed, Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We can send the comment this weekend after that. Best. Rafik On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" wrote: Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. Thanks, Ed --------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM To: "Ayden F?rdeline" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment Hi Ayden, Thanks, I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she can propose some edits there? I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : Hi Rafik, Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are slightly more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that an anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. Best wishes, Ayden F?rdeline Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the comment, I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the draft. if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). Best, Rafik 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. Stephanie On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. Best, Rafik 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : i also do not support postponement. avri On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of mandatory > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should happen, I > would be interested in hearing it. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >> deferral https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained his point >> of view on NCSG mailing list >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee80ad7.1705 . >> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the NCSG >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we have less >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> " >> > >, ncsg-pc >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >> comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing >> . >> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or not in >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this topics >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this Friday >> 19th May. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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](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](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987) Skype:mshears -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com [+447712472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987) Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu May 25 02:45:08 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 08:45:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Message-ID: hi all, we need to finish reviewing and finalizing the CC2 comment. the public consultation ended this Monday, we don't have much time to extend. I suggested previously Wednesday as the deadline but I only saw a comment from Ayden in the NCSG list. I would like to ask all members of policy committee to review the draft and then share their positions about endorsing it or not. for those who make comments in the google doc, please suggest wording or new text, that would be helpful to solve them. Thanks, Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-22 9:01 GMT+09:00 Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc Hi all, Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZU VNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld- subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en. The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to do so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, please add wording and edits when you make comments. looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu May 25 15:36:37 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:36:37 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi, this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Matt, > > thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as deadline for > getting all comments and doing edits in the draft, in order for the policy > committee to review and endorse by Friday 26th May, > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > >> Hi all >> >> Another consultation with a short deadline. >> >> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> Another public comment - *due soon*: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >> >> Consultation page: >> >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >> >> Consultation document: >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2- >> draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >> >> First draft of some initial comments here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWI >> C0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >> >> Thanks >> >> Matthew >> >> -- >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Thu May 25 16:50:54 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 15:50:54 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. Matthew On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. the > deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. > @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi Matt, > > thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as deadline > for getting all comments and doing edits in the draft, in order > for the policy committee to review and endorse by Friday 26th May, > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >: > > Hi all > > Another consultation with a short deadline. > > Thanks in advance for your inputs. > > Matthew > > > On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >> >> Consultation page: >> >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >> >> >> Consultation document: >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >> >> >> First draft of some initial comments here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >> >> Thanks >> >> Matthew >> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > > > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 26 02:26:59 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 08:26:59 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Review&Endorsment In-Reply-To: References: <9b2c1c71d89c4a58995a9635d378f1ea@toast.net> <6b217756-063c-3871-99eb-6df61b3a61bb@intpolicy.com> <1B73CF8A-61FD-4DFD-817B-D80E18675D5E@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi, our comment was included in the updated Staff report https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ccnso-review- deferral-24may17-en.pdf Best, Rafik 2017-05-24 14:48 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Ed, > > the email address allocated for the public comment was disabled when staff > report was put online. I am already following up with Lars in order to get > our comment included. > I really wanted to stress such drawback so everyone can appreciate how > much it is critical to submitting around the deadline. that needs everyone > participation within the policy committee. > I will follow-up soon on ideas how to improve things in term of policy > committee functioning. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2017-05-24 10:14 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> If that assurance was given I'd suggest you may want to contact the staff >> member involved and request that the staff report be amended to include >> our comments. The initial report without our contribution has been >> completed and posted online: https://www.icann.org/ >> en/system/files/files/report-comments-ccnso-review-deferral- >> 22may17-en.pdf . >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >> *Sent*: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 12:15 AM >> *To*: "ncsg-pc" >> >> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >> Review&Endorsment >> >> Hi all, >> >> I submitted the comment but the mail address for the public forum was >> bouncing. so I contacted the ICANN staff responsible for that public >> consultation and he is confirming if the comment will be published online >> and included in the staff report. >> >> I want really to stress and highlight that we may sometimes submit few >> days after the deadline but we cannot offer to do that all the time. We >> have currently the NCSG response to CC2 and PC should submit by Tuesday. >> otherwise, we will miss an opportunity to give input to the subsequent >> procedures working group. >> We also have the SO/AC accountability comment to review and endorse. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-23 23:22 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thanks for the support Poncelet, I think we have now Ed, Ayden, Matt, >>> Poncelet, myself and with no objection during the last 12hours. I think we >>> have a consensus and I will submit the comment. I would have preferred that >>> worked out this quickly but acknowledge that we needed to resolve any >>> concern or comments. >>> we have 2 comments to work on this week but then waiting few weeks till >>> the next one. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2017-05-23 22:42 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : >>>> >>>> Hello Rafik, >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing, and thanks Matthew for the great work, I definitely >>>> endorse the revised comments also. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> >>>> Poncelet >>>> >>>> On 23 May 2017 at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> Much thanks to Matt. I'm not sure what happened to my revisions - >>>>> Google docs and I don't seem to get along - but fully support submitting >>>>> the revised comment ASAP. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On 23 May 2017, at 13:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> attached the latest version after Matt edits. >>>>> I think it is time to submit, we are already over 3 days late from the >>>>> deadline. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2017-05-23 20:20 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >>>>>> >>>>>> I saw that Ed had said he had nuanced the language a little but did >>>>>> not see the changes so I have added to small edits to the text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthew >>>>>> >>>>>> On 23/05/2017 13:15, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> These comments were not Stephanie's but mine. I am happy for them >>>>>> to be removed from this doc in the interest of moving this forward but I do >>>>>> believe that they should be addressed at some point in time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthew >>>>>> >>>>>> On 23/05/2017 01:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> hi Ayden, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the review. >>>>>> I think the comments are from Stephanie and would like to ask her to >>>>>> do the edits asap. the comments are interesting but they are about the >>>>>> question to board about its interpretation of bylaws, how much are they >>>>>> critical to the current comment? I would wait for their resolution but we >>>>>> are quite late for submission. It will be a pity to miss a public comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am asking all PC members to reply to this comment, it is quite >>>>>> urgent. I understand we have support from Adyen, Ed, Matt. waiting for >>>>>> Stephanie to confirm that she is happy with the current version and if she >>>>>> can resolve her comments by suggesting wording. with no objection in next >>>>>> 12hours, I would submit the comment >>>>>> >>>>>> We have also the CC2 comments to act on asap, and SO/AC >>>>>> accountability by this Friday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-05-22 21:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for this reminder, Rafik. I have made a few revisions to the >>>>>>> language now, and support the submission of this comment. However, there >>>>>>> are still some very good comments on the Google Doc that have not been >>>>>>> resolved. Could the author of these comments kindly consider revising the >>>>>>> Google Doc to take them into account? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:03 AM >>>>>>> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:03 AM >>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>> To: Edward Morris >>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline , ncsg-pc < >>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> please review asap the current draft and check if you are fine with >>>>>>> the wording. we should submit by Monday the comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-05-20 15:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Ed, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the edits, waiting for other to go through and see if >>>>>>>> other changes are needed or if they are fine with the current version. We >>>>>>>> can send the comment this weekend after that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 20, 2017 7:11 AM, "Edward Morris" >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, Ayden, Stephanie, all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I just went into the document and tried to soften the language a >>>>>>>> bit: unacceptable became inadvisable, I deleted a few of the harsher and >>>>>>>> perhaps more perhaps unintentionally incendiary lines. I'm at work so it's >>>>>>>> a bit difficult at the moment for me to do much more - I'd certainly >>>>>>>> welcome further edits along those lines, if folks felt they were needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>>>>>>> *Sent*: Friday, May 19, 2017 10:56 PM >>>>>>>> *To*: "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>>>>>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >>>>>>>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>>> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> I saw the comments but they look like questions for me and I cannot >>>>>>>> really respond to them. I think that they were made by Stephanie, maybe she >>>>>>>> can propose some edits there? >>>>>>>> I am happy to delay and hold for few hours the submission if we can >>>>>>>> get some wording and edits to be considered to change the tone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just a quick clarification; I support the sentiment of the >>>>>>>>> comment, but as Stephanie alluded to, think it would be better if we are >>>>>>>>> slightly more tactful in the comment that we send through. I also note that >>>>>>>>> an anonymous commenter left some useful comments in the Google Doc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm, Rafik Dammak < >>>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comment, >>>>>>>>> I can understand we have support from Ed, Matt, Ayden, Stephanie >>>>>>>>> and myself for submitting the comment with no objection. also, support from >>>>>>>>> Avri as an observer. I interpret this as having consensus to send the >>>>>>>>> draft. >>>>>>>>> if there is no strong objections in next hours, I will submit the >>>>>>>>> comment on behalf of NCSG (document attached). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-05-20 6:27 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think it is worded too strongly, but I will support it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2017-05-19 16:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> so I see there is more endorsement for opposing the deferral and >>>>>>>>>> we have the new draft here https://docs.google.com/d >>>>>>>>>> ocument/d/1RILiprppZVCC2J9K1YnNXWU2wsMgqVPjDg1rDrWoQl4/edit >>>>>>>>>> can you please express your position quickly so we can submit the >>>>>>>>>> comment in due time. I will also share the new draft in NCSG list. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2017-05-19 23:39 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> i also do not support postponement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 19-May-17 04:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > My initial reaction is, I do not support the postponement of >>>>>>>>>>> mandatory >>>>>>>>>>> > Reviews. If there is a compelling reason for why this should >>>>>>>>>>> happen, I >>>>>>>>>>> > would be interested in hearing it. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Many thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Ayden >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / >>>>>>>>>>> >> Review&Endorsment >>>>>>>>>>> >> Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:52 AM >>>>>>>>>>> >> UTC Time: May 18, 2017 11:52 PM >>>>>>>>>>> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> >> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> I am sharing here the draft made by Arshad about ccNSO review >>>>>>>>>>> >> deferral https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=s >>>>>>>>>>> haring >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> I understand that Ed objected to the content and explained >>>>>>>>>>> his point >>>>>>>>>>> >> of view on NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> >> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;9ee8 >>>>>>>>>>> 0ad7.1705 . >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> I need to hear from others about their positions and also any >>>>>>>>>>> >> suggestion on how to accommodate the 2 opposite views in the >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG >>>>>>>>>>> >> comment i.e what can be the consensual position for NCSG here. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> the deadline for submission is also the 19th May and so we >>>>>>>>>>> have less >>>>>>>>>>> >> than 24hours to review and suggest a way to move forward. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>>> >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> Date: 2017-05-17 11:38 GMT+09:00 >>>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: Draft comment of CCNSO review deferral / Consultation >>>>>>>>>>> >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >> " >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >, ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Arshad kindly drafted and shared his draft for NCSG >>>>>>>>>>> >> comment https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>>>>>>>> nt/d/1ZZOFEBt1xbRblheuIvBdSXxFqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=s >>>>>>>>>>> haring >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> FqXiEBiesFflka6Rtk7I/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Please review it, add your comments, express your support or >>>>>>>>>>> not in >>>>>>>>>>> >> order to assess what we have the common NCSG position on this >>>>>>>>>>> topics >>>>>>>>>>> >> and submitting in time. the deadline for submission is this >>>>>>>>>>> Friday >>>>>>>>>>> >> 19th May. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Best. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> > 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 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Virus-free. >>>>>> www.avg.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>>> Coordinator >>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>>> The Gambia, West Africa >>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>>> Skype: pons_utd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>>> www.waigf.org >>>> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>>> * >>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 26 13:44:05 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 19:44:05 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, it is time to make a decision with regard to the CC2 comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. please review it and send your vote. we need clear support here. if we can reach conclusion by Today 23:59UTC it will be good since we also have to submit the SO/AC accountability comment. @Avri did the staff start working on the comments report? Best, Rafik 2017-05-25 8:45 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > hi all, > > we need to finish reviewing and finalizing the CC2 comment. the public > consultation ended this Monday, we don't have much time to extend. I > suggested previously Wednesday as the deadline but I only saw a comment > from Ayden in the NCSG list. > > I would like to ask all members of policy committee to review the draft > and then share their positions about endorsing it or not. for those who > make comments in the google doc, please suggest wording or new text, that > would be helpful to solve them. > Thanks, > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: 2017-05-22 9:01 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures / Consultation and review > To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , > ncsg-pc > > > Hi all, > > Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community > Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group > for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0Ev > fvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are > here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subs > equent-procedures-2017-03-22-en. > > The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to do > so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted > by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be > tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday > after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, > please add wording and edits when you make comments. > > looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in > the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in. > > Best, > > Rafik > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 26 13:47:42 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 19:47:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi, The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. Best, Rafik 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. > > Matthew > > On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. the > deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. > @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi Matt, >> >> thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as deadline for >> getting all comments and doing edits in the draft, in order for the policy >> committee to review and endorse by Friday 26th May, >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Another consultation with a short deadline. >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Another public comment - *due soon*: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >>> >>> Consultation page: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >>> >>> Consultation document: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-dr >>> aft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >>> >>> First draft of some initial comments here: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWI >>> C0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >>> >>> >> > > > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > > <#m_-48534856095391126_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri May 26 14:27:05 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:27:05 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46b41493bf0f4d208442c32355f56cf4@toast.net> Hi Rafik, I've made a suggested edit (although have not removed the line, pending receipt of others views) in paragraph 7. Specifically calling for contractual compliance in the ICANN environment traditionally has meant zealous enforcement of alleged intellectual monopoly rights. Contracts should be enforced: agreements are made to be honoured. That doesn't need to be stated. Making a specific point calling for contractual compliance plays into the IPC and CSG positions; I'd suggest that it is counterproductive for the NCSG to specifically call for such action. The line in question: ensuring contractual compliance of the Registry Agreement is key to this discussion as it enables a proper maintenance of what has been agreed between the parties. The rest of the document is a good compromise between competing views in the NCSG on a variety of issues. I'm happy to support if the above line is removed. Otherwise count me as an abstain: strict contractual compliance, in ICANN-speak, is not something the NCSG should be calling for or supporting. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:44 AM To: "ncsg-pc" , "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Poncelet Ileleji" , "Marilia Maciel" , "Milan, Stefania" , "Ayden F?rdeline" , "Matthew Shears" , "Stephanie Perrin" , "Edward Morris" , "Juan Manuel Rojas" Subject: Re: Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Hi all, it is time to make a decision with regard to the CC2 comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. please review it and send your vote. we need clear support here. if we can reach conclusion by Today 23:59UTC it will be good since we also have to submit the SO/AC accountability comment. @Avri did the staff start working on the comments report? Best, Rafik 2017-05-25 8:45 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : hi all, we need to finish reviewing and finalizing the CC2 comment. the public consultation ended this Monday, we don't have much time to extend. I suggested previously Wednesday as the deadline but I only saw a comment from Ayden in the NCSG list. I would like to ask all members of policy committee to review the draft and then share their positions about endorsing it or not. for those who make comments in the google doc, please suggest wording or new text, that would be helpful to solve them. Thanks, Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-22 9:01 GMT+09:00 Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc Hi all, Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en. The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to do so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, please add wording and edits when you make comments. looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri May 26 14:40:33 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:40:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, I support submission of these comments and thank those who have worked on the document. I would encourage the PC to consider changing the document a bit to support baking the SOAC "best practices" into the Bylaws as an addition to ?4.6(b) rather than by adding them to the lesser (in terms of required adherence) ATRT procedures documentation. SOAC accountability is an essential and needed component of the overall ICANN accountability reforms and needs to be accorded the same weight as those accountability procedures applied to other parts of the ICANN ecosphere. Kind Regards, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:48 AM To: "ncsg-pc" Cc: "Matthew Shears" , "Marilia Maciel" , "Milan, Stefania" , "Stephanie Perrin" , "Edward Morris" , "Poncelet Ileleji" , "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Juan Manuel Rojas" , "Ayden F?rdeline" Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations Hi, The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. Best, Rafik 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. Matthew On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Hi Matt, thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the draft, in order for the policy committee to review and endorse by Friday 26th May, Best, Rafik 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Hi all Another consultation with a short deadline. Thanks in advance for your inputs. Matthew On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: Hi all Another public comment - due soon: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC Consultation page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en Consultation document: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf First draft of some initial comments here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. Thanks Matthew -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss Virus-free. www.avg.com -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 26 14:45:54 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:45:54 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures In-Reply-To: <46b41493bf0f4d208442c32355f56cf4@toast.net> References: <46b41493bf0f4d208442c32355f56cf4@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed, Thanks for the comment. I can delete that line since it won't change the meaning of what precedes it. I will wait for other members if they are fine with that change. Best, Rafik 2017-05-26 20:27 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > Hi Rafik, > > I've made a suggested edit (although have not removed the line, pending > receipt of others views) in paragraph 7. Specifically calling for > contractual compliance in the ICANN environment traditionally has meant > zealous enforcement of alleged intellectual monopoly rights. Contracts > should be enforced: agreements are made to be honoured. That doesn't need > to be stated. Making a specific point calling for contractual compliance > plays into the IPC and CSG positions; I'd suggest that it is > counterproductive for the NCSG to specifically call for such action. The > line in question: > > *ensuring contractual compliance of the Registry Agreement is key to this > discussion as it enables a proper maintenance of what has been agreed > between the parties. * > > The rest of the document is a good compromise between competing views in > the NCSG on a variety of issues. I'm happy to support if the above line is > removed. Otherwise count me as an abstain: strict contractual compliance, > in ICANN-speak, is not something the NCSG should be calling for or > supporting. > > Ed > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:44 AM > *To*: "ncsg-pc" , "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, "Poncelet Ileleji" , "Marilia > Maciel" , "Milan, Stefania" < > Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>, "Ayden F?rdeline" , "Matthew > Shears" , "Stephanie Perrin" < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, "Edward Morris" , > "Juan Manuel Rojas" > *Subject*: Re: Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New > gTLD Subsequent Procedures > > Hi all, > > it is time to make a decision with regard to the CC2 comment > https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__ > EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. please review it and send your > vote. we need clear support here. if we can reach conclusion by Today > 23:59UTC it will be good since we also have to submit the SO/AC > accountability comment. > @Avri did the staff start working on the comments report? > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-25 8:45 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >> hi all, >> >> we need to finish reviewing and finalizing the CC2 comment. the public >> consultation ended this Monday, we don't have much time to extend. I >> suggested previously Wednesday as the deadline but I only saw a comment >> from Ayden in the NCSG list. >> >> I would like to ask all members of policy committee to review the draft >> and then share their positions about endorsing it or not. for those who >> make comments in the google doc, please suggest wording or new text, that >> would be helpful to solve them. >> Thanks, >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: 2017-05-22 9:01 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures / Consultation and review >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , >> ncsg-pc >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community >> Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group >> for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0Ev >> fvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are >> here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subs >> equent-procedures-2017-03-22-en. >> >> The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to >> do so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted >> by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be >> tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday >> after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, >> please add wording and edits when you make comments. >> >> looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in >> the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 26 14:47:41 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:47:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures In-Reply-To: References: <46b41493bf0f4d208442c32355f56cf4@toast.net> Message-ID: I can support this change. Ayden F?rdeline Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:45 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ed, Thanks for the comment. I can delete that line since it won't change the meaning of what precedes it. I will wait for other members if they are fine with that change. Best, Rafik 2017-05-26 20:27 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : Hi Rafik, I've made a suggested edit (although have not removed the line, pending receipt of others views) in paragraph 7. Specifically calling for contractual compliance in the ICANN environment traditionally has meant zealous enforcement of alleged intellectual monopoly rights. Contracts should be enforced: agreements are made to be honoured. That doesn't need to be stated. Making a specific point calling for contractual compliance plays into the IPC and CSG positions; I'd suggest that it is counterproductive for the NCSG to specifically call for such action. The line in question: ensuring contractual compliance of the Registry Agreement is key to this discussion as it enables a proper maintenance of what has been agreed between the parties. The rest of the document is a good compromise between competing views in the NCSG on a variety of issues. I'm happy to support if the above line is removed. Otherwise count me as an abstain: strict contractual compliance, in ICANN-speak, is not something the NCSG should be calling for or supporting. Ed --------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:44 AM To: "ncsg-pc" , "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Poncelet Ileleji" , "Marilia Maciel" , "Milan, Stefania" , "Ayden F?rdeline" , "Matthew Shears" , "Stephanie Perrin" , "Edward Morris" , "Juan Manuel Rojas" Subject: Re: Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Hi all, it is time to make a decision with regard to the CC2 comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. please review it and send your vote. we need clear support here. if we can reach conclusion by Today 23:59UTC it will be good since we also have to submit the SO/AC accountability comment. @Avri did the staff start working on the comments report? Best, Rafik 2017-05-25 8:45 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : hi all, we need to finish reviewing and finalizing the CC2 comment. the public consultation ended this Monday, we don't have much time to extend. I suggested previously Wednesday as the deadline but I only saw a comment from Ayden in the NCSG list. I would like to ask all members of policy committee to review the draft and then share their positions about endorsing it or not. for those who make comments in the google doc, please suggest wording or new text, that would be helpful to solve them. Thanks, Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-22 9:01 GMT+09:00 Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu " , ncsg-pc Hi all, Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en. The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to do so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, please add wording and edits when you make comments. looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in. Best, Rafik ______________________________ _________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 26 16:13:15 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:13:15 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi Ed I had wondered about this as well. I kind of left it vague because while I totally agree with the sentiment I am just not sure about incorporating the recommendations as a whole into the bylaws. If they evolve/increase/decrease they will require an EC action every-time. Could we add a line in the bylaws pointing to the recommendations in the ATRT procedures and the broader issue of the imperative of the SO/ACs working to strengthen their accountability, etc.? Just not sure how it would be phrased. Best. On 26/05/2017 11:40, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi Rafik, > I support submission of these comments and thank those who have worked > on the document. > I would encourage the PC to consider changing the document a bit to > support baking the SOAC "best practices" into the Bylaws as an > addition to ?4.6(b) rather than by adding them to the lesser (in terms > of required adherence) ATRT procedures documentation. SOAC > accountability is an essential and needed component of the overall > ICANN accountability reforms and needs to be accorded the same weight > as those accountability procedures applied to other parts of the ICANN > ecosphere. > Kind Regards, > Ed > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:48 AM > *To*: "ncsg-pc" > *Cc*: "Matthew Shears" , "Marilia Maciel" > , "Milan, Stefania" , > "Stephanie Perrin" , "Edward > Morris" , "Poncelet Ileleji" , > "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Juan Manuel > Rojas" , "Ayden F?rdeline" > *Subject*: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC > Accountability recommendations > Hi, > The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. > Best, > Rafik > 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >: > > Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. > > Matthew > > On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. >> the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. >> @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? >> Best, >> Rafik >> 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi Matt, >> thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as >> deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the >> draft, in order for the policy committee to review and >> endorse by Friday 26th May, >> Best, >> Rafik >> 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >> >: >> >> Hi all >> >> Another consultation with a short deadline. >> >> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >>> >>> Consultation page: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >>> >>> >>> Consultation document: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >>> >>> >>> First draft of some initial comments here: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shears >>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >> >> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >> >> >> >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> >> >> > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri May 26 16:11:14 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 09:11:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: <45e7ad9dfde243cfaa770c80efb5eb18@toast.net> Hi Matt, Don't forget during WS2 Bylaw changes are fairly easy when they occur as a result of a CCWG recommendation. If we want something in the Bylaws linking SOAC accountability to the ATRT the time to do it is now. If we want to be vague, something I agree with for the reasons you mentioned, how about proposing: Add to ?4.6(ii) the following subsection: (G) assessing and improving accountability procedures of the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. The specifics, such as the recommendations in the report, could be left to lesser mechanisms. I do think it is important to get some mention in the Bylaws putting SOAC accountability reviews within the remit of future ATRT's. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Matthew Shears" Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:13 PM To: egmorris1 at toast.net, "ncsg-pc" , "Rafik Dammak" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations Hi Ed I had wondered about this as well. I kind of left it vague because while I totally agree with the sentiment I am just not sure about incorporating the recommendations as a whole into the bylaws. If they evolve/increase/decrease they will require an EC action every-time. Could we add a line in the bylaws pointing to the recommendations in the ATRT procedures and the broader issue of the imperative of the SO/ACs working to strengthen their accountability, etc.? Just not sure how it would be phrased. Best. On 26/05/2017 11:40, Edward Morris wrote: Hi Rafik, I support submission of these comments and thank those who have worked on the document. I would encourage the PC to consider changing the document a bit to support baking the SOAC "best practices" into the Bylaws as an addition to ?4.6(b) rather than by adding them to the lesser (in terms of required adherence) ATRT procedures documentation. SOAC accountability is an essential and needed component of the overall ICANN accountability reforms and needs to be accorded the same weight as those accountability procedures applied to other parts of the ICANN ecosphere. Kind Regards, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:48 AM To: "ncsg-pc" Cc: "Matthew Shears" , "Marilia Maciel" , "Milan, Stefania" , "Stephanie Perrin" , "Edward Morris" , "Poncelet Ileleji" , "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Juan Manuel Rojas" , "Ayden F?rdeline" Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations Hi, The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. Best, Rafik 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. Matthew On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? Best, Rafik 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Hi Matt, thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the draft, in order for the policy committee to review and endorse by Friday 26th May, Best, Rafik 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : Hi all Another consultation with a short deadline. Thanks in advance for your inputs. Matthew On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: Hi all Another public comment - due soon: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC Consultation page: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en Consultation document: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf First draft of some initial comments here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. Thanks Matthew -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss Virus-free. www.avg.com -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 26 17:32:37 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:32:37 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: <45e7ad9dfde243cfaa770c80efb5eb18@toast.net> References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> <45e7ad9dfde243cfaa770c80efb5eb18@toast.net> Message-ID: <3431c168-a89e-3dd3-c855-7f31d9d00514@intpolicy.com> Hi Ed - elegant solution. I'm good with that. Thanks! On 26/05/2017 13:11, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi Matt, > Don't forget during WS2 Bylaw changes are fairly easy when they occur > as a result of a CCWG recommendation. If we want something in the > Bylaws linking SOAC accountability to the ATRT the time to do it is > now. If we want to be vague, something I agree with for the reasons > you mentioned, how about proposing: > Add to ?4.6(ii) the following subsection: > (G) assessing and improving accountability procedures of the > Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. > The specifics, such as the recommendations in the report, could be > left to lesser mechanisms. > I do think it is important to get some mention in the Bylaws putting > SOAC accountability reviews within the remit of future ATRT's. > Ed > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Matthew Shears" > *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:13 PM > *To*: egmorris1 at toast.net, "ncsg-pc" , "Rafik > Dammak" > *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC > Accountability recommendations > > Hi Ed > > I had wondered about this as well. I kind of left it vague because > while I totally agree with the sentiment I am just not sure about > incorporating the recommendations as a whole into the bylaws. If they > evolve/increase/decrease they will require an EC action every-time. > Could we add a line in the bylaws pointing to the recommendations in > the ATRT procedures and the broader issue of the imperative of the > SO/ACs working to strengthen their accountability, etc.? Just not sure > how it would be phrased. > > Best. > > On 26/05/2017 11:40, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi Rafik, >> I support submission of these comments and thank those who have >> worked on the document. >> I would encourage the PC to consider changing the document a bit to >> support baking the SOAC "best practices" into the Bylaws as an >> addition to ?4.6(b) rather than by adding them to the lesser (in >> terms of required adherence) ATRT procedures documentation. SOAC >> accountability is an essential and needed component of the overall >> ICANN accountability reforms and needs to be accorded the same weight >> as those accountability procedures applied to other parts of the >> ICANN ecosphere. >> Kind Regards, >> Ed >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >> *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:48 AM >> *To*: "ncsg-pc" >> *Cc*: "Matthew Shears" , "Marilia Maciel" >> , "Milan, Stefania" , >> "Stephanie Perrin" , "Edward >> Morris" , "Poncelet Ileleji" , >> "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Juan Manuel >> Rojas" , "Ayden F?rdeline" >> *Subject*: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC >> Accountability recommendations >> Hi, >> The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. >> Best, >> Rafik >> 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears > >: >> >> Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. >>> the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. >>> @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? >>> Best, >>> Rafik >>> 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: >>> >>> Hi Matt, >>> thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as >>> deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the >>> draft, in order for the policy committee to review and >>> endorse by Friday 26th May, >>> Best, >>> Rafik >>> 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >>> >: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Another consultation with a short deadline. >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >>>> >>>> Consultation page: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >>>> >>>> >>>> Consultation document: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> First draft of some initial comments here: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >>>> +447712472987 >>>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >>> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>> >>> >>> >> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri May 26 16:38:51 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 09:38:51 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: <3431c168-a89e-3dd3-c855-7f31d9d00514@intpolicy.com> References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> <45e7ad9dfde243cfaa770c80efb5eb18@toast.net> <3431c168-a89e-3dd3-c855-7f31d9d00514@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Sorry, I was in changing the document while this discussion was going on . Still think the direct approach is better....recommend insertion in bylaws Stephanie On 2017-05-26 10:32, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Hi Ed - elegant solution. I'm good with that. > > Thanks! > > > On 26/05/2017 13:11, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi Matt, >> Don't forget during WS2 Bylaw changes are fairly easy when they occur >> as a result of a CCWG recommendation. If we want something in the >> Bylaws linking SOAC accountability to the ATRT the time to do it is >> now. If we want to be vague, something I agree with for the reasons >> you mentioned, how about proposing: >> Add to ?4.6(ii) the following subsection: >> (G) assessing and improving accountability procedures of the >> Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. >> The specifics, such as the recommendations in the report, could be >> left to lesser mechanisms. >> I do think it is important to get some mention in the Bylaws putting >> SOAC accountability reviews within the remit of future ATRT's. >> Ed >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From*: "Matthew Shears" >> *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:13 PM >> *To*: egmorris1 at toast.net, "ncsg-pc" , "Rafik >> Dammak" >> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC >> Accountability recommendations >> >> Hi Ed >> >> I had wondered about this as well. I kind of left it vague because >> while I totally agree with the sentiment I am just not sure about >> incorporating the recommendations as a whole into the bylaws. If >> they evolve/increase/decrease they will require an EC action >> every-time. Could we add a line in the bylaws pointing to the >> recommendations in the ATRT procedures and the broader issue of the >> imperative of the SO/ACs working to strengthen their accountability, >> etc.? Just not sure how it would be phrased. >> >> Best. >> >> On 26/05/2017 11:40, Edward Morris wrote: >>> Hi Rafik, >>> I support submission of these comments and thank those who have >>> worked on the document. >>> I would encourage the PC to consider changing the document a bit to >>> support baking the SOAC "best practices" into the Bylaws as an >>> addition to ?4.6(b) rather than by adding them to the lesser (in >>> terms of required adherence) ATRT procedures documentation. SOAC >>> accountability is an essential and needed component of the overall >>> ICANN accountability reforms and needs to be accorded the same >>> weight as those accountability procedures applied to other parts of >>> the ICANN ecosphere. >>> Kind Regards, >>> Ed >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>> *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:48 AM >>> *To*: "ncsg-pc" >>> *Cc*: "Matthew Shears" , "Marilia Maciel" >>> , "Milan, Stefania" >>> , "Stephanie Perrin" >>> , "Edward Morris" >>> , "Poncelet Ileleji" , >>> "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Juan Manuel >>> Rojas" , "Ayden F?rdeline" >>> *Subject*: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC >>> Accountability recommendations >>> Hi, >>> The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. >>> Best, >>> Rafik >>> 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >> >: >>> >>> Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. >>>> the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. >>>> @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? >>>> Best, >>>> Rafik >>>> 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>> >: >>>> >>>> Hi Matt, >>>> thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as >>>> deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the >>>> draft, in order for the policy committee to review and >>>> endorse by Friday 26th May, >>>> Best, >>>> Rafik >>>> 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >>>> >: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Another consultation with a short deadline. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>> >>>>> Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >>>>> >>>>> Consultation page: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Consultation document: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> First draft of some initial comments here: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>> +447712472987 >>>>> Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >>>> +447712472987 >>>> Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri May 26 14:22:48 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:22:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04b3747334604d23b4ac8404256ffd7e@toast.net> Hi Rafik, I've made a suggested edit (although have not removed the line, pending receipt of others views) in paragraph 7. Specifically calling for contractual compliance in the ICANN environment traditionally has meant zealous enforcement of alleged intellectual monopoly rights. Contracts should be enforced: agreements are made to be honoured. That doesn't need to be stated. Making a specific point calling for contractual compliance plays into the IPC and CSG positions; I'd suggest that it is counterproductive for the NCSG to specifically call for such action. The line in question: ensuring contractual compliance of the Registry Agreement is key to this discussion as it enables a proper maintenance of what has been agreed between the parties. The rest of the document is a good compromise between competing views in the NCSG on a variety of issues. I'm happy to support if the above line is removed. Otherwise count me as an abstain: strict contractual compliance, in ICANN-speak, is not something the NCSG should be calling for or supporting. Ed From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:44 AM To: "ncsg-pc" , "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Poncelet Ileleji" , "Marilia Maciel" , "Milan, Stefania" , "Ayden F?rdeline" , "Matthew Shears" , "Stephanie Perrin" , "Edward Morris" , "Juan Manuel Rojas" Subject: Re: Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Hi all, it is time to make a decision with regard to the CC2 comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. please review it and send your vote. we need clear support here. if we can reach conclusion by Today 23:59UTC it will be good since we also have to submit the SO/AC accountability comment. @Avri did the staff start working on the comments report? Best, Rafik 2017-05-25 8:45 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : hi all, we need to finish reviewing and finalizing the CC2 comment. the public consultation ended this Monday, we don't have much time to extend. I suggested previously Wednesday as the deadline but I only saw a comment from Ayden in the NCSG list. I would like to ask all members of policy committee to review the draft and then share their positions about endorsing it or not. for those who make comments in the google doc, please suggest wording or new text, that would be helpful to solve them. Thanks, Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: 2017-05-22 9:01 GMT+09:00 Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" , ncsg-pc Hi all, Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en. The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to do so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, please add wording and edits when you make comments. looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 26 15:26:04 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:26:04 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Rafik, all I have tried to consolidate the comments in suggestion mode. Please take a last look so that we can wrap this up. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing Oh and expressions of support are welcome. Matthew On 26/05/2017 10:47, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >: > > Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. > > Matthew > > > On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. >> the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. >> @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as >> deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the >> draft, in order for the policy committee to review and >> endorse by Friday 26th May, >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >> >: >> >> Hi all >> >> Another consultation with a short deadline. >> >> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >>> >>> Consultation page: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >>> >>> >>> Consultation document: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >>> >>> >>> First draft of some initial comments here: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shears >>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >> >> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> >> >> >> <#m_-48534856095391126_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri May 26 16:37:19 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 09:37:19 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: I support, I changed the language re changes to Bylaws (awkward sentence) and caught a typo on term limits (not terms limits) stephanie On 2017-05-26 08:26, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Rafik, all > > I have tried to consolidate the comments in suggestion mode. Please > take a last look so that we can wrap this up. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing > > Oh and expressions of support are welcome. > > Matthew > > > On 26/05/2017 10:47, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears > >: >> >> Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. >>> the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. >>> @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: >>> >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as >>> deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the >>> draft, in order for the policy committee to review and >>> endorse by Friday 26th May, >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >>> >: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Another consultation with a short deadline. >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >>>> >>>> Consultation page: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >>>> >>>> >>>> Consultation document: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> First draft of some initial comments here: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shears >>>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>>> +447712472987 >>>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Shears >>> matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >>> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>> >>> >>> >>> <#m_-48534856095391126_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears >> >> > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Fri May 26 16:35:22 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:35:22 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hello Rafik, I endorse, no additional comments to make from my end. Kind Regards On 26 May 2017 at 10:47, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : > >> Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. the >> deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. >> @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as deadline for >>> getting all comments and doing edits in the draft, in order for the policy >>> committee to review and endorse by Friday 26th May, >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears : >>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Another consultation with a short deadline. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Another public comment - *due soon*: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >>>> >>>> Consultation page: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >>>> >>>> Consultation document: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-dr >>>> aft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >>>> >>>> First draft of some initial comments here: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWI >>>> C0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> Virus-free. >> www.avg.com >> >> <#m_-6219028581725717308_m_-48534856095391126_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> >> -- >> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears >> >> > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri May 26 19:47:41 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:47:41 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: <3431c168-a89e-3dd3-c855-7f31d9d00514@intpolicy.com> References: <2c2b19a9-5296-8c6b-ed35-03ccdb3dd006@intpolicy.com> <24c3241c-df05-d9a6-e82d-c621e5cddb18@intpolicy.com> <45e7ad9dfde243cfaa770c80efb5eb18@toast.net> <3431c168-a89e-3dd3-c855-7f31d9d00514@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Based upon Ed's suggestion I have edited the doc to read as follows: The NCSG recommends a change to the ICANN Bylaws at Sec 4.6 b, and adding to documented procedures for Accountability and Transparency reviews. For example, the following could be added to the Bylaws ?4.6(ii): (G) assessing and improving accountability procedures of the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. The specifics, such as the recommendations in the report, could be left to lesser mechanisms. Thoughts? Matthew On 26/05/2017 14:32, Matthew Shears wrote: > > This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear to be. Learn about spoofing Feedback > > Hi Ed - elegant solution. I'm good with that. > > Thanks! > > > On 26/05/2017 13:11, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi Matt, >> Don't forget during WS2 Bylaw changes are fairly easy when they occur >> as a result of a CCWG recommendation. If we want something in the >> Bylaws linking SOAC accountability to the ATRT the time to do it is >> now. If we want to be vague, something I agree with for the reasons >> you mentioned, how about proposing: >> Add to ?4.6(ii) the following subsection: >> (G) assessing and improving accountability procedures of the >> Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. >> The specifics, such as the recommendations in the report, could be >> left to lesser mechanisms. >> I do think it is important to get some mention in the Bylaws putting >> SOAC accountability reviews within the remit of future ATRT's. >> Ed >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From*: "Matthew Shears" >> *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:13 PM >> *To*: egmorris1 at toast.net, "ncsg-pc" , "Rafik >> Dammak" >> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC >> Accountability recommendations >> >> Hi Ed >> >> I had wondered about this as well. I kind of left it vague because >> while I totally agree with the sentiment I am just not sure about >> incorporating the recommendations as a whole into the bylaws. If >> they evolve/increase/decrease they will require an EC action >> every-time. Could we add a line in the bylaws pointing to the >> recommendations in the ATRT procedures and the broader issue of the >> imperative of the SO/ACs working to strengthen their accountability, >> etc.? Just not sure how it would be phrased. >> >> Best. >> >> On 26/05/2017 11:40, Edward Morris wrote: >>> Hi Rafik, >>> I support submission of these comments and thank those who have >>> worked on the document. >>> I would encourage the PC to consider changing the document a bit to >>> support baking the SOAC "best practices" into the Bylaws as an >>> addition to ?4.6(b) rather than by adding them to the lesser (in >>> terms of required adherence) ATRT procedures documentation. SOAC >>> accountability is an essential and needed component of the overall >>> ICANN accountability reforms and needs to be accorded the same >>> weight as those accountability procedures applied to other parts of >>> the ICANN ecosphere. >>> Kind Regards, >>> Ed >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>> *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:48 AM >>> *To*: "ncsg-pc" >>> *Cc*: "Matthew Shears" , "Marilia Maciel" >>> , "Milan, Stefania" >>> , "Stephanie Perrin" >>> , "Edward Morris" >>> , "Poncelet Ileleji" , >>> "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" , "Juan Manuel >>> Rojas" , "Ayden F?rdeline" >>> *Subject*: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG comments on the SO/AC >>> Accountability recommendations >>> Hi, >>> The deadline for submission is today. please review and send your vote. >>> Best, >>> Rafik >>> 2017-05-25 22:50 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >> >: >>> >>> Yes, final comments today, please. I will resolve in the AM. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 25/05/2017 14:36, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> this is a reminder to review the SO/AC accountability comment. >>>> the deadline for submission is this Friday 26th May. >>>> @Matt I assume that you can solve any comments in the document? >>>> Best, >>>> Rafik >>>> 2017-05-23 8:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>> >: >>>> >>>> Hi Matt, >>>> thanks for drafting this. I think we can have Thursday as >>>> deadline for getting all comments and doing edits in the >>>> draft, in order for the policy committee to review and >>>> endorse by Friday 26th May, >>>> Best, >>>> Rafik >>>> 2017-05-22 18:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears >>>> >: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Another consultation with a short deadline. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for your inputs. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> On 19/05/2017 11:37, Matthew Shears wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>> >>>>> Another public comment - _due soon_: 26 May 2017 23:59 UTC >>>>> >>>>> Consultation page: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/soac-accountability-2017-04-14-en >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Consultation document: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-improve-soac-accountability-29mar17-en.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> First draft of some initial comments here: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQ25RT9DHqTIBFlDKXpLAUWIC0EqE54p0YdT_7ysCxA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your thoughts in the doc. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >>>>> +447712472987 >>>>> Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >>>> +447712472987 >>>> Skype:mshears >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list >>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com >>> +447712472987 >>> Skype:mshears >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> -- >> Matthew Shears >> matthew at intpolicy.com >> +447712472987 >> Skype:mshears > > -- > Matthew Shears > matthew at intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Sat May 27 02:37:55 2017 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 23:37:55 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> Based upon list feedback and support from Stephanie, Poncelet, Ed, Rafik and myself (sorry if I missed anyone) and hearing no objections I took the liberty of submitting the attached. Many thanks for your contributions. Matthew -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability recommendations Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 23:34:34 +0000 From: Matthew Shears To: comments-soac-accountability-14apr17 at icann.org Please see attached. Many thanks. -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG comments on the Draft Recommendations of the CCWG Accountability WS2 on SO AC Accountability.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 93667 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat May 27 12:08:47 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 05:08:47 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Thanks for this, Matthew. -Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability recommendations Local Time: May 26, 2017 11:38 PM UTC Time: May 26, 2017 10:38 PM From: matthew at intpolicy.com To: ncsg-pc , Rafik Dammak Based upon list feedback and support from Stephanie, Poncelet, Ed, Rafik and myself (sorry if I missed anyone) and hearing no objections I took the liberty of submitting the attached. Many thanks for your contributions. Matthew -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability recommendations Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 23:34:34 +0000 From: Matthew Shears [](mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com) To: comments-soac-accountability-14apr17 at icann.org Please see attached. Many thanks. -- Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com +447712472987 Skype:mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Sat May 27 17:11:33 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 14:11:33 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Thank you Matthew, Much appreciated also. Peace Poncelet On 27 May 2017 at 09:08, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks for this, Matthew. > > -Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability > recommendations > Local Time: May 26, 2017 11:38 PM > UTC Time: May 26, 2017 10:38 PM > From: matthew at intpolicy.com > To: ncsg-pc , Rafik Dammak > > > Based upon list feedback and support from Stephanie, Poncelet, Ed, Rafik > and myself (sorry if I missed anyone) and hearing no objections I took the > liberty of submitting the attached. > > Many thanks for your contributions. > > Matthew > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: > NCSG comments on SO/AC Accountability recommendations > Date: > Fri, 26 May 2017 23:34:34 +0000 > From: > Matthew Shears > To: > comments-soac-accountability-14apr17 at icann.org > > > Please see attached. > > Many thanks. > > -- > Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com+447712472987 <+44%207712%20472987>Skype:mshears > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Sun May 28 05:13:11 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:13:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi everybody, During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press (http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it. I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure they are being spent as intended) . These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought it best to forgo commenting on them. Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. Thanks, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at doria.org Sun May 28 05:43:15 2017 From: avri at doria.org (avri@acm.org) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:43:15 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA Message-ID: (Observing) That this makes sense to me. Fine with seeing it submitted, though I see no reason to mention the business constituency - but it is ok. I think it enough to say ncsg participated in comment / objection. Avri Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message --------From: Edward Morris Date: 5/27/17 22:13 (GMT-05:00) To: Ayden F?rdeline , Poncelet Ileleji Cc: ncsg-pc Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA Hi everybody, ? During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press (http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). ? Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it. ? I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit ? I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: ? 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and ? 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure they are being spent as intended) . ? These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought it best to forgo commenting on them. ? Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. ? Thanks, ? Ed ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun May 28 11:02:28 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 04:02:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi Ed, Thanks so much for drafting this comment. I have made some edits to the Google Doc now, and overall support the sentiment and therefore support its submission. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Proposed comment on .NET RA Local Time: May 28, 2017 3:13 AM UTC Time: May 28, 2017 2:13 AM From: egmorris1 at toast.net To: Ayden F?rdeline , Poncelet Ileleji ncsg-pc Hi everybody, During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press (http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it. I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure they are being spent as intended) . These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought it best to forgo commenting on them. Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. Thanks, Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun May 28 12:04:56 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:04:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures In-Reply-To: References: <46b41493bf0f4d208442c32355f56cf4@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi all, The comments were resolved, including the deletion suggested by Ed. With the review done by Ayden, Stephanie, Matt, Ed and myself and there was no objection from the rest, I interpret that as we can submit the NCSG comment on CC2. the working group will have its confcall tomorrow and there is an update about community comments on the agenda, it will be good to submit prior to that. I attached the latest version that I will submit. Best, Rafik 2017-05-26 20:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > I can support this change. > > Ayden F?rdeline > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:45 pm, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Ed, > > Thanks for the comment. > I can delete that line since it won't change the meaning of what precedes > it. I will wait for other members if they are fine with that change. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-26 20:27 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> I've made a suggested edit (although have not removed the line, pending >> receipt of others views) in paragraph 7. Specifically calling for >> contractual compliance in the ICANN environment traditionally has meant >> zealous enforcement of alleged intellectual monopoly rights. Contracts >> should be enforced: agreements are made to be honoured. That doesn't need >> to be stated. Making a specific point calling for contractual compliance >> plays into the IPC and CSG positions; I'd suggest that it is >> counterproductive for the NCSG to specifically call for such action. The >> line in question: >> >> *ensuring contractual compliance of the Registry Agreement is key to this >> discussion as it enables a proper maintenance of what has been agreed >> between the parties. * >> >> The rest of the document is a good compromise between competing views in >> the NCSG on a variety of issues. I'm happy to support if the above line is >> removed. Otherwise count me as an abstain: strict contractual compliance, >> in ICANN-speak, is not something the NCSG should be calling for or >> supporting. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >> *Sent*: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:44 AM >> *To*: "ncsg-pc" , "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" < >> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, "Poncelet Ileleji" , >> "Marilia Maciel" , "Milan, Stefania" < >> Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>, "Ayden F?rdeline" , >> "Matthew Shears" , "Stephanie Perrin" < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, "Edward Morris" , >> "Juan Manuel Rojas" >> *Subject*: Re: Reminder Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New >> gTLD Subsequent Procedures >> >> Hi all, >> >> it is time to make a decision with regard to the CC2 comment >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0Ev >> fvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. please review it and send your vote. we need >> clear support here. if we can reach conclusion by Today 23:59UTC it will be >> good since we also have to submit the SO/AC accountability comment. >> @Avri did the staff start working on the comments report? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-25 8:45 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>> hi all, >>> >>> we need to finish reviewing and finalizing the CC2 comment. the public >>> consultation ended this Monday, we don't have much time to extend. I >>> suggested previously Wednesday as the deadline but I only saw a comment >>> from Ayden in the NCSG list. >>> >>> I would like to ask all members of policy committee to review the draft >>> and then share their positions about endorsing it or not. for those who >>> make comments in the google doc, please suggest wording or new text, that >>> would be helpful to solve them. >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> Date: 2017-05-22 9:01 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD >>> Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review >>> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu " , >>> ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community >>> Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group >>> for NCSG https://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0Ev >>> fvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are >>> here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subs >>> equent-procedures-2017-03-22-en. >>> >>> The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to >>> do so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted >>> by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be >>> tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday >>> after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, >>> please add wording and edits when you make comments. >>> >>> looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in >>> the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSGproposedCommentonCC2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 62459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun May 28 12:15:50 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:15:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: <20170528024324.68FBD8217@posti.effi.org> References: <20170528024324.68FBD8217@posti.effi.org> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Ed for drafting the comment. I can support the comment, also agree that mention of BC should be removed. Best, Rafik 2017-05-28 11:43 GMT+09:00 avri at acm.org : > (Observing) > > That this makes sense to me. Fine with seeing it submitted, though I see > no reason to mention the business constituency - but it is ok. I think it > enough to say ncsg participated in comment / objection. > > Avri > > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Edward Morris > Date: 5/27/17 22:13 (GMT-05:00) > To: Ayden F?rdeline , Poncelet Ileleji < > pileleji at ymca.gm> > Cc: ncsg-pc > Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA > > Hi everybody, > > During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were > not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first > time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that > wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and > PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff > negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in > the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business > Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press ( > http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition- > wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). > > Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To > support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to > require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/ > pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/ > INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have > an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN > finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we > should acknowledge it. > > I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_ > G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit > > I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: > > 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies > dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created > new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and > > 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the > Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders > participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we > ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure > they are being spent as intended) . > > These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach > agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is > certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about > some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short > and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought > it best to forgo commenting on them. > > Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. > > Thanks, > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Sun May 28 14:40:24 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:40:24 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: References: <20170528024324.68FBD8217@posti.effi.org> Message-ID: <8CC18490-5558-43E0-9D0E-13B293BA6C81@toast.net> Thanks all for the support. I also agree with removing reference to the BC link. It was late and I was in a charitable mood. :) Thanks Avri for picking up on it. Best, Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 28 May 2017, at 10:16, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks Ed for drafting the comment. > I can support the comment, also agree that mention of BC should be removed. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-28 11:43 GMT+09:00 avri at acm.org : >> (Observing) >> >> That this makes sense to me. Fine with seeing it submitted, though I see no reason to mention the business constituency - but it is ok. I think it enough to say ncsg participated in comment / objection. >> >> Avri >> >> >> >> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Edward Morris >> Date: 5/27/17 22:13 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Ayden F?rdeline , Poncelet Ileleji >> Cc: ncsg-pc >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press (http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). >> >> Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it. >> >> I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit >> >> I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: >> >> 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and >> >> 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure they are being spent as intended) . >> >> These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought it best to forgo commenting on them. >> >> Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 29 16:08:13 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 22:08:13 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Diversity subgroup questionnaire Message-ID: Hi all, we have a questionnaire that we should respond to it from the diversity subgroup which is asking for SO/AC input. I attached the questionnaire and uploaded it in this google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ORtn_QTSavUC6WsZsmLCB7G_N4lffGNxmqWeMB8ByM/edit. being a co-rapporteur there I cannot really lead the draft for NCSG and would like to ask if someone want to jump in. The deadline is the 1st June but I think we can submit by the end of this week. I will also share the draft with the NCSG list for comments. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170316-Diversity-Questionnaire Updated (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 91941 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon May 29 16:19:43 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:19:43 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Diversity subgroup questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, I have placed answers below questions on the google docs, with my comments, other colleagues can add, amend and delete if they feel my statements does not cover the question within the questionaire appropriately. I felt I just kick start the process. Kind Regards Poncelet On 29 May 2017 at 13:08, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > we have a questionnaire that we should respond to it from the diversity > subgroup which is asking for SO/AC input. I attached the questionnaire and > uploaded it in this google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ORtn_ > QTSavUC6WsZsmLCB7G_N4lffGNxmqWeMB8ByM/edit. being a co-rapporteur there I > cannot really lead the draft for NCSG and would like to ask if someone want > to jump in. > The deadline is the 1st June but I think we can submit by the end of this > week. I will also share the draft with the NCSG list for comments. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 29 16:23:56 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 22:23:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Diversity subgroup questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Poncelet, Thanks! that is the goal, to kick off the drafting and having some comments will get more people to participate. Best, Rafik 2017-05-29 22:19 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : > Thanks Rafik, > > I have placed answers below questions on the google docs, with my > comments, other colleagues can add, amend and delete if they feel my > statements does not cover the question within the questionaire > appropriately. > > I felt I just kick start the process. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 29 May 2017 at 13:08, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> we have a questionnaire that we should respond to it from the diversity >> subgroup which is asking for SO/AC input. I attached the questionnaire and >> uploaded it in this google doc https://docs.google.com/docume >> nt/d/19ORtn_QTSavUC6WsZsmLCB7G_N4lffGNxmqWeMB8ByM/edit. being a >> co-rapporteur there I cannot really lead the draft for NCSG and would like >> to ask if someone want to jump in. >> The deadline is the 1st June but I think we can submit by the end of this >> week. I will also share the draft with the NCSG list for comments. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 29 16:40:14 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 22:40:14 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preparing for Johannesburg Meeting Message-ID: Hi all, the ICANN59 meeting is just 4 weeks away and it is time to prepare for it since it is policy forum and so mainly about policy. * Prior to the meeting we usually have our NCSG call prior to a council meeting but we will have at least 6 weeks gap to our last call. One idea would be to organize a prep meeting 1 or 2 weeks prior to Johannesburg to give a briefing about the main topics to be discussed there, sessions etc. that should be from NCSG standpoint since there is also the usual ICANN meeting policy webinar organized by the staff. both are complementary for our members. there will be also the usual policy background briefing prepared from GNSO staff. I am also thinking about organizing 1 webinar for one topic that we select and that we think important. any suggestion for a topic we should cover? * During the meeting we have to discuss the agenda for the policy committee session and what we should cover. I should share a draft agenda for discussion soon. We may also have some informal session to share information and prepare for the sessions of the day thoughts? Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon May 29 16:52:58 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:52:58 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preparing for Johannesburg Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik for this. A little frustrated observer here : I do urge our councilors to participate in preparation for 1. The preparatory policy webinar before ICANN meeting, which can be addressed to newcomers as well as those who want to become more active in ICANN 2. policy outreach sessions of NCSG that will take place during the ICANN meeting Since the next ICANN meeting is a policy/outreach meeting, I have relied on NCSG for outreach and awareness raising about policymaking and policy issues and I did not ask for many NCUC meetings, to avoid conflict and also allow members to attend and learn about as many policy issues as they can. But members need briefing and policy outreach sessions need preparations. Rafik and others can't do everything. So I do request the councilors to help us prepare for ICANN 59. Marillia and Stefi, I specifically seek your kind help. Best Farzaneh Farzaneh On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > the ICANN59 meeting is just 4 weeks away and it is time to prepare for it > since it is policy forum and so mainly about policy. > > * Prior to the meeting > we usually have our NCSG call prior to a council meeting but we will have > at least 6 weeks gap to our last call. One idea would be to organize a prep > meeting 1 or 2 weeks prior to Johannesburg to give a briefing about the > main topics to be discussed there, sessions etc. that should be from NCSG > standpoint since there is also the usual ICANN meeting policy webinar > organized by the staff. both are complementary for our members. there will > be also the usual policy background briefing prepared from GNSO staff. > > I am also thinking about organizing 1 webinar for one topic that we select > and that we think important. any suggestion for a topic we should cover? > > * During the meeting > we have to discuss the agenda for the policy committee session and what we > should cover. I should share a draft agenda for discussion soon. > We may also have some informal session to share information and prepare > for the sessions of the day > > thoughts? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon May 29 20:22:23 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:22:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preparing for Johannesburg Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9428a32e-6ebc-1de5-f32f-44f60fb09ba9@mail.utoronto.ca> I think auction proceeds is important as a potential webinar topic, and would be happy to play arole in that. I am about to send out an update on auction proceeds....and there will be a survey coming out soon that we want people to be aware enough to participate in. cheers Stephanie P On 2017-05-29 09:52, farzaneh badii wrote: > Thanks Rafik for this. > > A little frustrated observer here : > > > I do urge our councilors to participate in preparation for > > 1. The preparatory policy webinar before ICANN meeting, which can be > addressed to newcomers as well as those who want to become more active > in ICANN > > 2. policy outreach sessions of NCSG that will take place during the > ICANN meeting > > Since the next ICANN meeting is a policy/outreach meeting, I have > relied on NCSG for outreach and awareness raising about policymaking > and policy issues and I did not ask for many NCUC meetings, to avoid > conflict and also allow members to attend and learn about as many > policy issues as they can. > > But members need briefing and policy outreach sessions need > preparations. Rafik and others can't do everything. So I do request > the councilors to help us prepare for ICANN 59. Marillia and Stefi, I > specifically seek your kind help. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > the ICANN59 meeting is just 4 weeks away and it is time to prepare > for it since it is policy forum and so mainly about policy. > > * Prior to the meeting > we usually have our NCSG call prior to a council meeting but we > will have at least 6 weeks gap to our last call. One idea would be > to organize a prep meeting 1 or 2 weeks prior to Johannesburg to > give a briefing about the main topics to be discussed there, > sessions etc. that should be from NCSG standpoint since there is > also the usual ICANN meeting policy webinar organized by the > staff. both are complementary for our members. there will be also > the usual policy background briefing prepared from GNSO staff. > > I am also thinking about organizing 1 webinar for one topic that > we select and that we think important. any suggestion for a topic > we should cover? > > * During the meeting > we have to discuss the agenda for the policy committee session and > what we should cover. I should share a draft agenda for discussion > soon. > We may also have some informal session to share information and > prepare for the sessions of the day > > thoughts? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon May 29 23:19:21 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:19:21 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preparing for Johannesburg Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cnzkaHyfjhMCjGdDy1SoqQxfQyqsoS9Rx2x_Ppur5V5SA-itIXIbPAa4Tu_zJmU0reP03Xger_zXJTYpiIl6cyVYULjn7_ZiUyZ6VFrry0=@ferdeline.com> Hi Rafik, Thanks so much for getting the ball rolling on this. On your first point, I would like to suggest that we have this call two weeks before Johannesburg. In the week before, NCUC members might be preparing for the NCUC outreach event, if not in transit to South Africa. In terms of dates, the staff-led policy update webinar is on Thursday, 15 June. I am free every day that week for our call so will wait to hear the preferred date/time of others. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preparing for Johannesburg Meeting Local Time: May 29, 2017 2:40 PM UTC Time: May 29, 2017 1:40 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc Hi all, the ICANN59 meeting is just 4 weeks away and it is time to prepare for it since it is policy forum and so mainly about policy. * Prior to the meeting we usually have our NCSG call prior to a council meeting but we will have at least 6 weeks gap to our last call. One idea would be to organize a prep meeting 1 or 2 weeks prior to Johannesburg to give a briefing about the main topics to be discussed there, sessions etc. that should be from NCSG standpoint since there is also the usual ICANN meeting policy webinar organized by the staff. both are complementary for our members. there will be also the usual policy background briefing prepared from GNSO staff. I am also thinking about organizing 1 webinar for one topic that we select and that we think important. any suggestion for a topic we should cover? * During the meeting we have to discuss the agenda for the policy committee session and what we should cover. I should share a draft agenda for discussion soon. We may also have some informal session to share information and prepare for the sessions of the day thoughts? Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon May 29 23:31:32 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:31:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Diversity subgroup questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have made some very substantial changes to this comment. Sorry if I have erased what you wrote; I have tried to add a healthy dose of realism to this document. But the ultimate test might be to share the response on the wider NCSG-Discuss list to see if others agree with the sentiments. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Diversity subgroup questionnaire Local Time: May 29, 2017 2:23 PM UTC Time: May 29, 2017 1:23 PM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Poncelet Ileleji ncsg-pc Hi Poncelet, Thanks! that is the goal, to kick off the drafting and having some comments will get more people to participate. Best, Rafik 2017-05-29 22:19 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji : Thanks Rafik, I have placed answers below questions on the google docs, with my comments, other colleagues can add, amend and delete if they feel my statements does not cover the question within the questionaire appropriately. I felt I just kick start the process. Kind Regards Poncelet On 29 May 2017 at 13:08, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, we have a questionnaire that we should respond to it from the diversity subgroup which is asking for SO/AC input. I attached the questionnaire and uploaded it in this google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ORtn_QTSavUC6WsZsmLCB7G_N4lffGNxmqWeMB8ByM/edit. being a co-rapporteur there I cannot really lead the draft for NCSG and would like to ask if someone want to jump in. The deadline is the 1st June but I think we can submit by the end of this week. I will also share the draft with the NCSG list for comments. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ 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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 30 11:45:18 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 17:45:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: Hi all, this is a reminder about reviewing and endorsing the comment on .net agreement renewal. I think Ayden expressed support for the comment. I reviewed the comment and agreed with the removal of BC mention. waiting for others to share their thoughts. Best, Rafik 2017-05-28 11:13 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > Hi everybody, > > During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were > not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first > time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that > wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and > PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff > negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in > the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business > Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press ( > http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition- > wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). > > Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To > support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to > require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/ > pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/ > INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have > an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN > finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we > should acknowledge it. > > I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_ > G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit > > I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: > > 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies > dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created > new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and > > 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the > Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders > participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we > ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure > they are being spent as intended) . > > These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach > agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is > certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about > some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short > and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought > it best to forgo commenting on them. > > Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. > > Thanks, > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue May 30 11:47:12 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 04:47:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> Message-ID: <4QdzsSZo2NVWgl7VGC3IfE0VIV0SA3_zWviqtKa7eZyw29HiRzmGLM6mdotpw4g09t0tTcwrckRwvRagJhDgWO773gsy6-244laorJb8O2M=@ferdeline.com> Hi Rafik, Yes, I did express support for the comment with two revisions (both of which have since been resolved in the Google Doc). I hope we will be able to submit this comment, if there is support. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA Local Time: May 30, 2017 9:45 AM UTC Time: May 30, 2017 8:45 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Edward Morris Ayden F?rdeline , Poncelet Ileleji , ncsg-pc Hi all, this is a reminder about reviewing and endorsing the comment on .net agreement renewal. I think Ayden expressed support for the comment. I reviewed the comment and agreed with the removal of BC mention. waiting for others to share their thoughts. Best, Rafik 2017-05-28 11:13 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : Hi everybody, During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press (http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it. I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure they are being spent as intended) . These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought it best to forgo commenting on them. Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. Thanks, Ed _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 30 11:50:35 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 17:50:35 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: <4QdzsSZo2NVWgl7VGC3IfE0VIV0SA3_zWviqtKa7eZyw29HiRzmGLM6mdotpw4g09t0tTcwrckRwvRagJhDgWO773gsy6-244laorJb8O2M=@ferdeline.com> References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> <4QdzsSZo2NVWgl7VGC3IfE0VIV0SA3_zWviqtKa7eZyw29HiRzmGLM6mdotpw4g09t0tTcwrckRwvRagJhDgWO773gsy6-244laorJb8O2M=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks Ayden, the deadline for submission is in 15hours and we need to wrap-up this. if I don't hear objection by Today 23:59UTC I would submit the comment @Ed can you please share the latest version. Best, Rafik 2017-05-30 17:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi Rafik, > > Yes, I did express support for the comment with two revisions (both of > which have since been resolved in the Google Doc). I hope we will be able > to submit this comment, if there is support. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA > Local Time: May 30, 2017 9:45 AM > UTC Time: May 30, 2017 8:45 AM > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: Edward Morris > Ayden F?rdeline , Poncelet Ileleji , > ncsg-pc > > Hi all, > > this is a reminder about reviewing and endorsing the comment on .net > agreement renewal. > I think Ayden expressed support for the comment. I reviewed the comment > and agreed with the removal of BC mention. waiting for others to share > their thoughts. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-28 11:13 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > >> Hi everybody, >> >> During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were >> not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first >> time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that >> wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and >> PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff >> negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in >> the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business >> Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press ( >> http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants- >> urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). >> >> Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To >> support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to >> require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. ( >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/ >> attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). >> I don?t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we need >> to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we?ve been pressing >> them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it. >> >> I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/docume >> nt/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit >> >> I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: >> >> 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies >> dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created >> new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and >> >> 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the >> Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders >> participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we >> ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure >> they are being spent as intended) . >> >> These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach >> agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is >> certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about >> some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short >> and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought >> it best to forgo commenting on them. >> >> Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 31 07:14:07 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:14:07 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> <4QdzsSZo2NVWgl7VGC3IfE0VIV0SA3_zWviqtKa7eZyw29HiRzmGLM6mdotpw4g09t0tTcwrckRwvRagJhDgWO773gsy6-244laorJb8O2M=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi all, deadline already passed a few hours ago, with no objections heard, I think we can submit the comment (latest version attached). so I will send the comment. Thanks. Best, Rafik 2017-05-30 17:50 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Thanks Ayden, the deadline for submission is in 15hours and we need to > wrap-up this. if I don't hear objection by Today 23:59UTC I would submit > the comment > @Ed can you please share the latest version. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-30 17:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Yes, I did express support for the comment with two revisions (both of >> which have since been resolved in the Google Doc). I hope we will be able >> to submit this comment, if there is support. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA >> Local Time: May 30, 2017 9:45 AM >> UTC Time: May 30, 2017 8:45 AM >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> To: Edward Morris >> Ayden F?rdeline , Poncelet Ileleji , >> ncsg-pc >> >> Hi all, >> >> this is a reminder about reviewing and endorsing the comment on .net >> agreement renewal. >> I think Ayden expressed support for the comment. I reviewed the comment >> and agreed with the removal of BC mention. waiting for others to share >> their thoughts. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-05-28 11:13 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : >> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were >>> not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first >>> time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that >>> wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and >>> PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff >>> negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in >>> the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business >>> Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press ( >>> http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-ur >>> s-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). >>> >>> Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To >>> support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to >>> require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. ( >>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/ >>> attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf >>> ). I don?t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we >>> need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we?ve been >>> pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it. >>> >>> I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/docume >>> nt/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit >>> >>> I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: >>> >>> 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies >>> dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created >>> new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and >>> >>> 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the >>> Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders >>> participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we >>> ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure >>> they are being spent as intended) . >>> >>> These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly >>> reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is >>> certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about >>> some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short >>> and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought >>> it best to forgo commenting on them. >>> >>> Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by >>> then. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSGCommentontheProposedRenewalofthe.NETRegistryAgreement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu Wed May 31 15:58:33 2017 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 12:58:33 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> <4QdzsSZo2NVWgl7VGC3IfE0VIV0SA3_zWviqtKa7eZyw29HiRzmGLM6mdotpw4g09t0tTcwrckRwvRagJhDgWO773gsy6-244laorJb8O2M=@ferdeline.com> , Message-ID: Thanks Rafik. Consensus on my side, sorry for not being able to contribute meaningful content in due time. Stefania ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Rafik Dammak Inviato: mercoled? 31 maggio 2017 06:14:07 A: Ayden F?rdeline Cc: ncsg-pc Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA Hi all, deadline already passed a few hours ago, with no objections heard, I think we can submit the comment (latest version attached). so I will send the comment. Thanks. Best, Rafik 2017-05-30 17:50 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: Thanks Ayden, the deadline for submission is in 15hours and we need to wrap-up this. if I don't hear objection by Today 23:59UTC I would submit the comment @Ed can you please share the latest version. Best, Rafik 2017-05-30 17:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: Hi Rafik, Yes, I did express support for the comment with two revisions (both of which have since been resolved in the Google Doc). I hope we will be able to submit this comment, if there is support. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA Local Time: May 30, 2017 9:45 AM UTC Time: May 30, 2017 8:45 AM From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: Edward Morris > Ayden F?rdeline >, Poncelet Ileleji >, ncsg-pc > Hi all, this is a reminder about reviewing and endorsing the comment on .net agreement renewal. I think Ayden expressed support for the comment. I reviewed the comment and agreed with the removal of BC mention. waiting for others to share their thoughts. Best, Rafik 2017-05-28 11:13 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris >: Hi everybody, During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press (http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we should acknowledge it. I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure they are being spent as intended) . These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought it best to forgo commenting on them. Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. Thanks, Ed _______________________________________________ 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 pileleji at ymca.gm Wed May 31 16:01:28 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:01:28 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA In-Reply-To: References: <7a53b562-896f-ca79-3fa1-dda9c143bbe7@intpolicy.com> <4QdzsSZo2NVWgl7VGC3IfE0VIV0SA3_zWviqtKa7eZyw29HiRzmGLM6mdotpw4g09t0tTcwrckRwvRagJhDgWO773gsy6-244laorJb8O2M=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hello Rafik, Agreed, great work indeed to all those that contributed. Kind Regards Poncelet On 31 May 2017 at 12:58, Milan, Stefania wrote: > Thanks Rafik. Consensus on my side, sorry for not being able to contribute > meaningful content in due time. Stefania > > ________________________________________ > Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Rafik Dammak < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com> > Inviato: mercoled? 31 maggio 2017 06:14:07 > A: Ayden F?rdeline > Cc: ncsg-pc > Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA > > Hi all, > > deadline already passed a few hours ago, with no objections heard, I think > we can submit the comment (latest version attached). so I will send the > comment. > Thanks. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2017-05-30 17:50 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>: > Thanks Ayden, the deadline for submission is in 15hours and we need to > wrap-up this. if I don't hear objection by Today 23:59UTC I would submit > the comment > @Ed can you please share the latest version. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-30 17:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline ann at ferdeline.com>>: > Hi Rafik, > > Yes, I did express support for the comment with two revisions (both of > which have since been resolved in the Google Doc). I hope we will be able > to submit this comment, if there is support. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Proposed comment on .NET RA > Local Time: May 30, 2017 9:45 AM > UTC Time: May 30, 2017 8:45 AM > From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com > To: Edward Morris > > Ayden F?rdeline >, > Poncelet Ileleji >, ncsg-pc < > ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> > > Hi all, > > this is a reminder about reviewing and endorsing the comment on .net > agreement renewal. > I think Ayden expressed support for the comment. I reviewed the comment > and agreed with the removal of BC mention. waiting for others to share > their thoughts. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-05-28 11:13 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris morris1 at toast.net>>: > Hi everybody, > > During our most recent Policy Committee meeting we decided that we were > not going to submit a comment on the .NET Renewal Agreement. For the first > time in years ICANN was presenting a legacy gTLD renewal agreement that > wasn?t noxious. Specifically, there was no effort to expand the URS and > PDDP into the legacy gTLDs thus creating de facto consensus policy by staff > negotiated contract. This is an issue the NCSG has been very vocal about in > the past. In fact, we did a joint comment on it with the Business > Constituency (BC) that created a bit of a stir in the industry press ( > http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition- > wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts ). > > Well, I now think we should submit a public comment on the Agreement. To > support it. The IPC has rallied its troops to try to convince the Board to > require the inclusion of the URS and PDDP in the RA. (http://mm.icann.org/ > pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/attachments/20170521/d67e3bb5/ > INTAdotNETRenewalFINAL05-21-17-0001.pdf ). I don?t think we need to have > an elaborate comment but I do think we need to show the flag. When ICANN > finally does something we?ve been pressing them to do for a few years we > should acknowledge it. > > I?ve started a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Et_ > G0aHmhgYlHu8gC95RkXrJ6LeJeaBTReGExS_T2kg/edit > > I?ve restricted the initial comment to two items: > > 1. Commending ICANN and Verisign for agreeing to let Consensus Policies > dictate IP protection requirements rather than imposing the staff created > new gTLD RPM?s on .NET, and > > 2. Supporting creation of a special fund using proceeds from the > Registry-Level Transaction Fees to support developing country stakeholders > participation at ICANN ( as the funds aren?t segregated I have suggested we > ask the Board to annually report on the use of these monies ? to ensure > they are being spent as intended) . > > These are both traditional NCSG positions and I hope we can quickly reach > agreement on them. Overall, I believe it?s a good agreement and it is > certainly much better than the last few RA?s. I have a few quibbles about > some of the pricing arrangements but in an effort to keep the comment short > and focused on the IP issue, and to quickly get consensus here, I thought > it best to forgo commenting on them. > > Comment is due in Tuesday midnight. I hope we can get PC sign off by then. > > Thanks, > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: