From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Oct  2 08:17:57 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:17:57 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkBc9uQncOzDsQ0D5rr+24XdFPkYQZL55JzwAse1wAYnA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Sam and Farell made amendments to the draft comment to add the input from
NCSG list,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10K4cnqMrhRnF1mZFtBbQKpzGNMBcZv2OCjvly_8eYoQ/edit#
.

The deadline for submission passed(it was the 27th September) so we need to
do a quick review and decide about endorsing or not the comment, not later
than 4th Oct.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/fe19e541/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Oct  2 15:41:53 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:41:53 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more reasonable
for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track. it
also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
had a process to start with.

I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).

We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.

Best,

Rafik

2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list  I
> am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair election.
> I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to CSG
> during the house nomination process.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
>
>> Dear PC,
>>
>> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
>> is the end of this week.
>>
>> Background:
>>
>> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
>> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
>> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
>> also accept.
>>
>> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
>>
>> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
>> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
>>
>> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
>> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
>> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
>>
>> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
>> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
>>
>> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
>>
>> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
>> per the procedure we agreed on.
>>
>> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
>> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
>> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
>> as she's term-limited as councillor.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/1494ea1d/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Mon Oct  2 15:48:03 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 12:48:03 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>,
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AM4PR05MB33327806B4841A0259396237F77D0@AM4PR05MB3332.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I am grateful for this reasonable proposal, Rafik, and for the time you put into finding viable consensus solutions able to keep good relations while strengthening our position. I fully support it.
Stefania

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Inviato: luned? 2 ottobre 2017 14:41:53
A: Tapani Tarvainen; NCSG-PC
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election

Hi,

While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine with running for vice-chair instead considering the current context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more reasonable for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track. it also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we had a process to start with.

I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).

We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.

Best,

Rafik

2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
Hi,

for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list  I am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair election.
I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to CSG during the house nomination process.

Best,

Rafik


2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
Dear PC,

Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
is the end of this week.

Background:

The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
also accept.

Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.

And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
need to talk with CPH at the same time.

Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).

Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).

For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.

And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
per the procedure we agreed on.

I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
as she's term-limited as councillor.

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



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 arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Mon Oct  2 15:53:03 2017
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:53:03 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR05MB33327806B4841A0259396237F77D0@AM4PR05MB3332.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM4PR05MB33327806B4841A0259396237F77D0@AM4PR05MB3332.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWqX41TegiP5TTp+hCB5ZXf+DxaGE2TrxGUxWfb1q4tE-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Rafik, good move.
+1 to Stephania

------------------------
**Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
& Mexico
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
- AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>
). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius
<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>)*
- *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet
Freedom.

Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)

2017-10-02 14:48 GMT+02:00 Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>:

> I am grateful for this reasonable proposal, Rafik, and for the time you
> put into finding viable consensus solutions able to keep good relations
> while strengthening our position. I fully support it.
> Stefania
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Rafik Dammak <
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Inviato: luned? 2 ottobre 2017 14:41:53
> A: Tapani Tarvainen; NCSG-PC
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
>
> Hi,
>
> While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
> with running for vice-chair instead considering the current context.
> taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more reasonable for the
> time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
> discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
> some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track. it
> also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
> had a process to start with.
>
> I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
> continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
> processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
>
> We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
> make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> Hi,
>
> for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list  I
> am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair election.
> I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to CSG
> during the house nomination process.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<
> mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
> Dear PC,
>
> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
> is the end of this week.
>
> Background:
>
> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
> also accept.
>
> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
>
> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
>
> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
>
> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
>
> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
>
> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
> per the procedure we agreed on.
>
> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
> as she's term-limited as councillor.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/8910f1da/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Mon Oct  2 15:56:11 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:56:11 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AEFCAFDC-DD93-4753-9A64-18EA57040BFD@gmail.com>

I fully support this approach.  Thanks for all!

Mart?n

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine with running for vice-chair instead considering the current context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more reasonable for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track. it also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we had a process to start with. 
> 
> I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
> 
> We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
>  
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> Hi,
> 
> for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list  I am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair election.
> I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to CSG during the house nomination process.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
> Dear PC,
> 
> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
> is the end of this week.
> 
> Background:
> 
> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
> also accept.
> 
> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
> 
> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
> 
> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
> 
> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
> 
> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
> 
> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
> per the procedure we agreed on.
> 
> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
> as she's term-limited as councillor.
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/7b582a6e/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Oct  2 16:34:24 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:34:24 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>

Agreed.

Tapani

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
> with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
> context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more reasonable
> for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
> discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
> some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track. it
> also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
> had a process to start with.
> 
> I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
> continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
> processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
> 
> We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
> make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list  I
> > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair election.
> > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to CSG
> > during the house nomination process.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>:
> >
> >> Dear PC,
> >>
> >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
> >> is the end of this week.
> >>
> >> Background:
> >>
> >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
> >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
> >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
> >> also accept.
> >>
> >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
> >>
> >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
> >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
> >>
> >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
> >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
> >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
> >>
> >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
> >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
> >>
> >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
> >>
> >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
> >> per the procedure we agreed on.
> >>
> >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
> >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
> >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
> >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tapani Tarvainen


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Oct  2 17:27:45 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 23:27:45 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be offline
soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 19:00UTC, we
should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.

Best,

Rafik


On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

Agreed.

Tapani

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
> with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
> context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
reasonable
> for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
> discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
> some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track.
it
> also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
> had a process to start with.
>
> I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
> continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
> processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
>
> We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
> make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list
I
> > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
election.
> > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to
CSG
> > during the house nomination process.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>:
> >
> >> Dear PC,
> >>
> >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
> >> is the end of this week.
> >>
> >> Background:
> >>
> >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
> >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
> >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
> >> also accept.
> >>
> >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
> >>
> >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
> >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
> >>
> >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
> >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
> >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
> >>
> >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
> >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
> >>
> >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
> >>
> >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
> >> per the procedure we agreed on.
> >>
> >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
> >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
> >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
> >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/0494b555/attachment.htm>

From matthew at intpolicy.com  Mon Oct  2 17:30:11 2017
From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:30:11 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9796b194-f560-90f6-90da-1d54621da919@intpolicy.com>

I support this approach - but working on a process is imperative.


On 02/10/2017 15:27, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be 
> offline soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 
> 19:00UTC, we should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint 
> nomination.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" 
> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>
>     Agreed.
>
>     Tapani
>
>     On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak
>     (rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I
>     am fine
>     > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
>     > context.? taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
>     reasonable
>     > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and
>     also ongoing
>     > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand
>     there may
>     > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership
>     on track. it
>     > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due
>     time, nor we
>     > had a process to start with.
>     >
>     > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
>     > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and
>     election
>     > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
>     >
>     > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG
>     asap and
>     > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
>     >
>     > Best,
>     >
>     > Rafik
>     >
>     > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>     >
>     > > Hi,
>     > >
>     > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in
>     PC list? I
>     > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO
>     chair election.
>     > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and
>     suggest it to CSG
>     > > during the house nomination process.
>     > >
>     > > Best,
>     > >
>     > > Rafik
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen
>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>     > >
>     > >> Dear PC,
>     > >>
>     > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
>     > >> is the end of this week.
>     > >>
>     > >> Background:
>     > >>
>     > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
>     > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
>     > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
>     > >> also accept.
>     > >>
>     > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
>     > >>
>     > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
>     > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
>     > >>
>     > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
>     > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
>     > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
>     > >>
>     > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
>     > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
>     > >>
>     > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
>     > >>
>     > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice
>     Chair, as
>     > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
>     > >>
>     > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
>     > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
>     > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
>     > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
>     > >>
>     > >> --
>     > >> Tapani Tarvainen
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
> <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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/2b5e874e/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Oct  2 19:06:56 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:06:56 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20171002160656.gxv6nbjptykizdz7@tarvainen.info>

So as Rafik sleeps, I'll take that as instructions and absent
objections will take it upon myself to send the nomination to the
secretariat together with CSG (apparently represented in this case by
Wolf-Ulrich, even though CSG doesn't have a chair as such).

So far out of 11 PC members I count Rafik, Stefania, Martin, myself
and Matthew in favour, still waiting for Marilia, Stephanie, Tatiana,
Ayden, Poncelet and Juan.

Tapani

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be offline
> soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 19:00UTC, we
> should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> wrote:
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
> > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
> > context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
> reasonable
> > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
> > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
> > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track.
> it
> > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
> > had a process to start with.
> >
> > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
> > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
> > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
> >
> > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
> > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list
> I
> > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
> election.
> > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to
> CSG
> > > during the house nomination process.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> >:
> > >
> > >> Dear PC,
> > >>
> > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
> > >> is the end of this week.
> > >>
> > >> Background:
> > >>
> > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
> > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
> > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
> > >> also accept.
> > >>
> > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
> > >>
> > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
> > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
> > >>
> > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
> > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
> > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
> > >>
> > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
> > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
> > >>
> > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
> > >>
> > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
> > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
> > >>
> > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
> > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
> > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
> > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Tapani Tarvainen


From pileleji at ymca.gm  Mon Oct  2 19:20:54 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:20:54 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <20171002160656.gxv6nbjptykizdz7@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002160656.gxv6nbjptykizdz7@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAEux40t6VWALW-4=WAvNKtNXxDSuF9U+OeVJvJcdXUUnpFpenA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Tapani,

Was to respond sorry for the delay, I support  the approach as rightly
stated by Matthew. We need  importantly to have a process for this.

Thank you

Poncelet

On 2 October 2017 at 16:06, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

> So as Rafik sleeps, I'll take that as instructions and absent
> objections will take it upon myself to send the nomination to the
> secretariat together with CSG (apparently represented in this case by
> Wolf-Ulrich, even though CSG doesn't have a chair as such).
>
> So far out of 11 PC members I count Rafik, Stefania, Martin, myself
> and Matthew in favour, still waiting for Marilia, Stephanie, Tatiana,
> Ayden, Poncelet and Juan.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be
> offline
> > soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 19:00UTC,
> we
> > should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
> > rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
> > > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
> > > context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
> > reasonable
> > > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also
> ongoing
> > > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there
> may
> > > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on
> track.
> > it
> > > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor
> we
> > > had a process to start with.
> > >
> > > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
> > > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
> > > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
> > >
> > > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap
> and
> > > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC
> list
> > I
> > > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
> > election.
> > > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to
> > CSG
> > > > during the house nomination process.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Rafik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> > >:
> > > >
> > > >> Dear PC,
> > > >>
> > > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
> > > >> is the end of this week.
> > > >>
> > > >> Background:
> > > >>
> > > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
> > > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
> > > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
> > > >> also accept.
> > > >>
> > > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
> > > >>
> > > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
> > > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
> > > >>
> > > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
> > > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
> > > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
> > > >>
> > > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
> > > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
> > > >>
> > > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
> > > >>
> > > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair,
> as
> > > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
> > > >>
> > > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
> > > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
> > > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
> > > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/19ec5412/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Oct  2 20:52:36 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 13:52:36 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkBc9uQncOzDsQ0D5rr+24XdFPkYQZL55JzwAse1wAYnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkBc9uQncOzDsQ0D5rr+24XdFPkYQZL55JzwAse1wAYnA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WMY1QKBvq9BO64C1XK8VM5nBPzJ5dt9l5bWVDts3wL6460ai6ffaXkvOGQYW60QStzufqvBEjaVhbaUqu8we2jeKIz2PJJErliYDp7bjDP8=@ferdeline.com>

Hi all,

I have now reviewed this comment and have made a number of suggested edits to improve clarity. But in terms of substance, I agree with Farell's analysis and think it is sound. I am pleased to endorse the submission of this comment.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
> Local Time: 2 October 2017 6:17 AM
> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 05:17
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sam and Farell made amendments to the draft comment to add the input from NCSG list, https://docs.google.com/document/d/10K4cnqMrhRnF1mZFtBbQKpzGNMBcZv2OCjvly_8eYoQ/edit#.
>
> The deadline for submission passed(it was the 27th September) so we need to do a quick review and decide about endorsing or not the comment, not later than 4th Oct.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/921ffc91/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Oct  2 21:06:30 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:06:30 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40t6VWALW-4=WAvNKtNXxDSuF9U+OeVJvJcdXUUnpFpenA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002160656.gxv6nbjptykizdz7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40t6VWALW-4=WAvNKtNXxDSuF9U+OeVJvJcdXUUnpFpenA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <oAYa8pI9kuZjvAuALAuEw_cMuZcyE7ddbesRYKgFiQwuOmRnPOH3YKyPeYkXY9otnT2wCpTDxDeSYie4nJIIS4bwy10BL6hFtpZ-M36RQSg=@ferdeline.com>

I have to say Rafik, I'm very surprised by this thread, because I did not think this was the path that we had agreed to take forward. I do not oppose Heather chairing Council, particularly following our call last week where we had a number of questions clarified, but I thought we were going to impress upon the CSG our frustration with them choosing a Chair behind closed doors without involving us. It does not sound to me like this happened?

?Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
> Local Time: 2 October 2017 5:20 PM
> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 16:20
> From: pileleji at ymca.gm
> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hello Tapani,
> Was to respond sorry for the delay, I support  the approach as rightly stated by Matthew. We need  importantly to have a process for this.
>
> Thank you
> Poncelet
>
> On 2 October 2017 at 16:06, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
>> So as Rafik sleeps, I'll take that as instructions and absent
>> objections will take it upon myself to send the nomination to the
>> secretariat together with CSG (apparently represented in this case by
>> Wolf-Ulrich, even though CSG doesn't have a chair as such).
>>
>> So far out of 11 PC members I count Rafik, Stefania, Martin, myself
>> and Matthew in favour, still waiting for Marilia, Stephanie, Tatiana,
>> Ayden, Poncelet and Juan.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be offline
>>> soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 19:00UTC, we
>>> should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
>>> > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
>>> > context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
>>> reasonable
>>> > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
>>> > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
>>> > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track.
>>> it
>>> > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
>>> > had a process to start with.
>>> >
>>> > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
>>> > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
>>> > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
>>> >
>>> > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
>>> > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> >
>>> > Rafik
>>> >
>>> > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi,
>>> > >
>>> > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list
>>> I
>>> > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
>>> election.
>>> > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to
>>> CSG
>>> > > during the house nomination process.
>>> > >
>>> > > Best,
>>> > >
>>> > > Rafik
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>>> >:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Dear PC,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
>>> > >> is the end of this week.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Background:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
>>> > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
>>> > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
>>> > >> also accept.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
>>> > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
>>> > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
>>> > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
>>> > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
>>> > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
>>> > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
>>> > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
>>> > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> --
>>> > >> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org
> [www,insistglobal.com](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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/8cdaa821/attachment.htm>

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Mon Oct  2 21:20:53 2017
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:20:53 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
In-Reply-To: <WMY1QKBvq9BO64C1XK8VM5nBPzJ5dt9l5bWVDts3wL6460ai6ffaXkvOGQYW60QStzufqvBEjaVhbaUqu8we2jeKIz2PJJErliYDp7bjDP8=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThkBc9uQncOzDsQ0D5rr+24XdFPkYQZL55JzwAse1wAYnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <WMY1QKBvq9BO64C1XK8VM5nBPzJ5dt9l5bWVDts3wL6460ai6ffaXkvOGQYW60QStzufqvBEjaVhbaUqu8we2jeKIz2PJJErliYDp7bjDP8=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <3789ab80-d6eb-7fa2-c959-22620a81ec6f@kathykleiman.com>

I am an observer, and support the submission of these comments. Tx to 
all who drafted and edited!

Who will be able to report back to the PC whether the suggestions were 
a) incorporated into the ICANN Staff Report, and b) incorporated into 
the final SADAG report? (We have found that follow-up often makes a 
difference in the final product.)

Best, Kathy


On 10/2/2017 1:52 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have now reviewed this comment and have made a number of suggested 
> edits to improve clarity. But in terms of substance, I agree with 
> Farell's analysis and think it is sound.?I am pleased to endorse the 
> submission of this comment.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
>> Local Time: 2 October 2017 6:17 AM
>> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 05:17
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sam and Farell made amendments to the draft comment to add the input 
>> from NCSG list, 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10K4cnqMrhRnF1mZFtBbQKpzGNMBcZv2OCjvly_8eYoQ/edit#.
>>
>> The deadline for submission passed(it was the 27th September) so we 
>> need to do a quick review and decide about endorsing or not the 
>> comment, not later than 4th Oct.
>>
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/fb81ac12/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Oct  2 22:01:50 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 22:01:50 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20171002190150.6v2ot5v6uxv4nx54@tarvainen.info>

It's 19:00 UTC now and there've been no objections, so I'll go ahead
the nomination with CSG.

Tapani

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be offline
> soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 19:00UTC, we
> should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> wrote:
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
> > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
> > context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
> reasonable
> > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
> > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
> > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track.
> it
> > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
> > had a process to start with.
> >
> > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
> > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
> > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
> >
> > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
> > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list
> I
> > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
> election.
> > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to
> CSG
> > > during the house nomination process.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> >:
> > >
> > >> Dear PC,
> > >>
> > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
> > >> is the end of this week.
> > >>
> > >> Background:
> > >>
> > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
> > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
> > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
> > >> also accept.
> > >>
> > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
> > >>
> > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
> > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
> > >>
> > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
> > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
> > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
> > >>
> > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
> > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
> > >>
> > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
> > >>
> > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
> > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
> > >>
> > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
> > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
> > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
> > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Oct  2 22:17:48 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 22:17:48 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCPH Nominates Heather Forrest for GNSO Chair
Message-ID: <20171002191748.w23rubkhx5tuwyro@tarvainen.info>

Dear Nathalie,

NCPH hereby nominates Heather Forrest as a candidate for GNSO Chair.

Sincerely,

Tapani Tarvainen, on behalf of NCSG
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, on behalf of CSG
Julf Helsingius, NomCom appointee to NCPH


From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Mon Oct  2 22:18:42 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:18:42 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <oAYa8pI9kuZjvAuALAuEw_cMuZcyE7ddbesRYKgFiQwuOmRnPOH3YKyPeYkXY9otnT2wCpTDxDeSYie4nJIIS4bwy10BL6hFtpZ-M36RQSg=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002160656.gxv6nbjptykizdz7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40t6VWALW-4=WAvNKtNXxDSuF9U+OeVJvJcdXUUnpFpenA@mail.gmail.com>
 <oAYa8pI9kuZjvAuALAuEw_cMuZcyE7ddbesRYKgFiQwuOmRnPOH3YKyPeYkXY9otnT2wCpTDxDeSYie4nJIIS4bwy10BL6hFtpZ-M36RQSg=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <E4C6C147-765A-4C26-A9E0-F825DECEEC03@gmail.com>

Ayden, 
	Just some thought, probably wrong but what I understand so far:	Rafik did act as agreed. We have deadlines to meet so we need to confirm or deny Heather, we still can keep showing our disagreement and anger and push for three things: 1) a selection process. 2) VC position for Rafik 3) use this as an opportunity to leverage Rafik for Chair next chance.

	Heather was VC, she did her campaign, leaving us out (grrrrrr), and we did nothing to either push our candidate or find out if there was any other out there. So we are not innocent in being fooled. We already decided not to deny Heather the Chair, so we can confirm her, let?s focus on building the VC and Rafik chances to be Chair one day and a process that prevents this sort of abuses from the CHP and the CSG against NCSG. Let?s move on this issues that we still need to work out in NCPH! 


Cheers,
Mart?n



> On Oct 2, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
> 
> I have to say Rafik, I'm very surprised by this thread, because I did not think this was the path that we had agreed to take forward. I do not oppose Heather chairing Council, particularly following our call last week where we had a number of questions clarified, but I thought we were going to impress upon the CSG our frustration with them choosing a Chair behind closed doors without involving us. It does not sound to me like this happened? 
> 
> ?Ayden 
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
>> Local Time: 2 October 2017 5:20 PM
>> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 16:20
>> From: pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>
>> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>> 
>> Hello Tapani,
>> Was to respond sorry for the delay, I support  the approach as rightly stated by Matthew. We need  importantly to have a process for this.
>> 
>> Thank you
>> Poncelet
>> 
>> On 2 October 2017 at 16:06, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>> So as Rafik sleeps, I'll take that as instructions and absent
>> objections will take it upon myself to send the nomination to the
>> secretariat together with CSG (apparently represented in this case by
>> Wolf-Ulrich, even though CSG doesn't have a chair as such).
>> 
>> So far out of 11 PC members I count Rafik, Stefania, Martin, myself
>> and Matthew in favour, still waiting for Marilia, Stephanie, Tatiana,
>> Ayden, Poncelet and Juan.
>> 
>> Tapani
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be offline
>> > soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 19:00UTC, we
>> > should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Rafik
>> >
>> >
>> > On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > Tapani
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
>> > rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
>> > > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
>> > > context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
>> > reasonable
>> > > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
>> > > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
>> > > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track.
>> > it
>> > > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
>> > > had a process to start with.
>> > >
>> > > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
>> > > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
>> > > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
>> > >
>> > > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
>> > > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > >
>> > > Rafik
>> > >
>> > > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list
>> > I
>> > > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
>> > election.
>> > > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to
>> > CSG
>> > > > during the house nomination process.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > >
>> > > > Rafik
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>> > >:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Dear PC,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
>> > > >> is the end of this week.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Background:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
>> > > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
>> > > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
>> > > >> also accept.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
>> > > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
>> > > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
>> > > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
>> > > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
>> > > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
>> > > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
>> > > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
>> > > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/d1194c47/attachment.htm>

From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org  Mon Oct  2 22:26:00 2017
From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:26:00 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] NCPH Nominates Heather Forrest for GNSO Chair
In-Reply-To: <20171002191748.w23rubkhx5tuwyro@tarvainen.info>
References: <20171002191748.w23rubkhx5tuwyro@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <030F91E1-CF64-42BE-B52B-5019F92C8764@icann.org>

Dear all,

We confirm receipt of the NCPH nomination of Heather Forrest as candidate for GNSO Chair.

Kindest regards,

Nathalie

 
Nathalie Peregrine
Manager, Operations Support (GNSO)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org? <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org%20>
Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann
 


On 10/2/17, 9:19 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

    Dear Nathalie,
    
    NCPH hereby nominates Heather Forrest as a candidate for GNSO Chair.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Tapani Tarvainen, on behalf of NCSG
    Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, on behalf of CSG
    Julf Helsingius, NomCom appointee to NCPH
    


From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Oct  2 22:37:09 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:37:09 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <E4C6C147-765A-4C26-A9E0-F825DECEEC03@gmail.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002160656.gxv6nbjptykizdz7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40t6VWALW-4=WAvNKtNXxDSuF9U+OeVJvJcdXUUnpFpenA@mail.gmail.com>
 <oAYa8pI9kuZjvAuALAuEw_cMuZcyE7ddbesRYKgFiQwuOmRnPOH3YKyPeYkXY9otnT2wCpTDxDeSYie4nJIIS4bwy10BL6hFtpZ-M36RQSg=@ferdeline.com>
 <E4C6C147-765A-4C26-A9E0-F825DECEEC03@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7NbUjDH883Q0DiW9r-GREYPFmf1zpLDTn-QCE8OZCQ9qjvDgPqvBAlWum8LMLfWMNK3c7ng6OlAP0OsoYffMLJ6WVsc2J7s2FiDLGX27rpI=@ferdeline.com>

It is not worth getting into now because my view is clearly the minority position, but I was under the impression that we had asked Rafik to inform Heather that there was a leadership challenge. I was not aware we were moving forward in another fashion. To be clear, I do not oppose Heather, I just did not realise we had decided to proceed in this manner.

?Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
> Local Time: 2 October 2017 8:18 PM
> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 19:18
> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Ayden,
> Just some thought, probably wrong but what I understand so far:Rafik did act as agreed. We have deadlines to meet so we need to confirm or deny Heather, we still can keep showing our disagreement and anger and push for three things: 1) a selection process. 2) VC position for Rafik 3) use this as an opportunity to leverage Rafik for Chair next chance.
>
> Heather was VC, she did her campaign, leaving us out (grrrrrr), and we did nothing to either push our candidate or find out if there was any other out there. So we are not innocent in being fooled. We already decided not to deny Heather the Chair, so we can confirm her, let?s focus on building the VC and Rafik chances to be Chair one day and a process that prevents this sort of abuses from the CHP and the CSG against NCSG. Let?s move on this issues that we still need to work out in NCPH!
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have to say Rafik, I'm very surprised by this thread, because I did not think this was the path that we had agreed to take forward. I do not oppose Heather chairing Council, particularly following our call last week where we had a number of questions clarified, but I thought we were going to impress upon the CSG our frustration with them choosing a Chair behind closed doors without involving us. It does not sound to me like this happened?
>>
>> ?Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
>>> Local Time: 2 October 2017 5:20 PM
>>> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 16:20
>>> From: pileleji at ymca.gm
>>> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Hello Tapani,
>>> Was to respond sorry for the delay, I support  the approach as rightly stated by Matthew. We need  importantly to have a process for this.
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>> Poncelet
>>>
>>> On 2 October 2017 at 16:06, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So as Rafik sleeps, I'll take that as instructions and absent
>>>> objections will take it upon myself to send the nomination to the
>>>> secretariat together with CSG (apparently represented in this case by
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich, even though CSG doesn't have a chair as such).
>>>>
>>>> So far out of 11 PC members I count Rafik, Stefania, Martin, myself
>>>> and Matthew in favour, still waiting for Marilia, Stephanie, Tatiana,
>>>> Ayden, Poncelet and Juan.
>>>>
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be offline
>>>>> soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 19:00UTC, we
>>>>> should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
>>>>> > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
>>>>> > context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
>>>>> reasonable
>>>>> > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
>>>>> > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
>>>>> > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track.
>>>>> it
>>>>> > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
>>>>> > had a process to start with.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
>>>>> > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
>>>>> > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
>>>>> > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Rafik
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Hi,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list
>>>>> I
>>>>> > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
>>>>> election.
>>>>> > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to
>>>>> CSG
>>>>> > > during the house nomination process.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Best,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Rafik
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>>>>> >:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> Dear PC,
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
>>>>> > >> is the end of this week.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Background:
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
>>>>> > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
>>>>> > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
>>>>> > >> also accept.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
>>>>> > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
>>>>> > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
>>>>> > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
>>>>> > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
>>>>> > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
>>>>> > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
>>>>> > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
>>>>> > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> --
>>>>> > >> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> --
>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>> Coordinator
>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>> [www.ymca.gm](http://www.ymca.gm/)
>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>> [www.waigf.org](http://www.waigf.org/)
>>> [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm/)
>>> [www.npoc.org](http://www.npoc.org/)
>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>> [www.diplointernetgovernance.org](http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/0a024088/attachment.htm>

From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Tue Oct  3 00:35:17 2017
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:35:17 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <7NbUjDH883Q0DiW9r-GREYPFmf1zpLDTn-QCE8OZCQ9qjvDgPqvBAlWum8LMLfWMNK3c7ng6OlAP0OsoYffMLJ6WVsc2J7s2FiDLGX27rpI=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002160656.gxv6nbjptykizdz7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40t6VWALW-4=WAvNKtNXxDSuF9U+OeVJvJcdXUUnpFpenA@mail.gmail.com>
 <oAYa8pI9kuZjvAuALAuEw_cMuZcyE7ddbesRYKgFiQwuOmRnPOH3YKyPeYkXY9otnT2wCpTDxDeSYie4nJIIS4bwy10BL6hFtpZ-M36RQSg=@ferdeline.com>
 <E4C6C147-765A-4C26-A9E0-F825DECEEC03@gmail.com>
 <7NbUjDH883Q0DiW9r-GREYPFmf1zpLDTn-QCE8OZCQ9qjvDgPqvBAlWum8LMLfWMNK3c7ng6OlAP0OsoYffMLJ6WVsc2J7s2FiDLGX27rpI=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <51876395.1502529.1506980117595@mail.yahoo.com>

>From our side we also support Heather Forrest for GNSO Chair
JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?ColombiaCommunications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANNCluster Orinoco TIC memberMaster IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
Cel. +57 3017435600
Twitter:?@JmanuRojas





? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

    On Monday, October 2, 2017, 2:37:28 PM GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:  
 
 It is not worth getting into now because my view is clearly the minority position, but I was under the impression that we had asked Rafik to inform Heather that there was a leadership challenge. I was not aware we were moving forward in another fashion. To be clear, I do not oppose Heather, I just did not realise we had decided to proceed in this manner.

?Ayden?



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
Local Time: 2 October 2017 8:18 PM
UTC Time: 2 October 2017 19:18
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Ayden,?
Just some thought, probably wrong but what I understand so far: Rafik did act as agreed.?We have deadlines to meet so we need to confirm or deny Heather, we still can keep showing our disagreement and anger and push for three things: 1) a selection process. 2) VC position for Rafik 3) use this as an opportunity to leverage Rafik for Chair next chance.

Heather was VC, she did her campaign, leaving us out (grrrrrr), and we did nothing to either push our candidate or find out if there was any other out there. So we are not innocent in being fooled. We already decided not to deny Heather the Chair, so we can confirm her, let?s focus on building the VC and Rafik chances to be Chair one day and a process that prevents this sort of abuses from the CHP and the CSG against NCSG. Let?s move on this issues that we still need to work out in NCPH!?


Cheers,
Mart?n




On Oct 2, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

I have to say Rafik, I'm very surprised by this thread, because I did not think this was the path that we had agreed to take forward. I do not oppose Heather chairing Council, particularly following our call last week where we had a number of questions clarified, but I thought we were going to impress upon the CSG our frustration with them choosing a Chair behind closed doors without involving us. It does not sound to me like this happened??

?Ayden?



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
Local Time: 2 October 2017 5:20 PM
UTC Time: 2 October 2017 16:20
From: pileleji at ymca.gm
To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Hello Tapani,
Was to respond sorry for the delay, I support? the approach as rightly stated by Matthew. We need? importantly to have a process for this.

Thank you
Poncelet

On 2 October 2017 at 16:06, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

So as Rafik sleeps, I'll take that as instructions and absent
objections will take it upon myself to send the nomination to the
secretariat together with CSG (apparently represented in this case by
Wolf-Ulrich, even though CSG doesn't have a chair as such).

So far out of 11 PC members I count Rafik, Stefania, Martin, myself
and Matthew in favour, still waiting for Marilia, Stephanie, Tatiana,
Ayden, Poncelet and Juan.

Tapani
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be offline
> soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by 19:00UTC, we
> should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am fine
> > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
> > context.? taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
> reasonable
> > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also ongoing
> > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand there may
> > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on track.
> it
> > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor we
> > had a process to start with.
> >
> > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
> > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and election
> > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
> >
> > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap and
> > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC list
> I
> > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
> election.
> > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it to
> CSG
> > > during the house nomination process.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> >:
> > >
> > >> Dear PC,
> > >>
> > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
> > >> is the end of this week.
> > >>
> > >> Background:
> > >>
> > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
> > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
> > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
> > >> also accept.
> > >>
> > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
> > >>
> > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
> > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
> > >>
> > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
> > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
> > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
> > >>
> > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
> > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
> > >>
> > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
> > >>
> > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair, as
> > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
> > >>
> > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
> > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
> > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
> > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Tapani Tarvainen
______________________________ _________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ listinfo/ncsg-pc




-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org
www,insistglobal.com
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org

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



_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/6eb680bb/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Oct  3 01:20:01 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:20:01 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Hong Kong Session
Message-ID: <oZWsUSbLIeFZpAritDn3FuLe2GgCGyiwYT0fOd6YtBloN98csIRvr0066LFAX5ZPifkRfE9oYCI-gX9XIc0e6PK98WGDMDktnXotOAiece4=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

Did anyone hear anything regarding what Theresa and Becky discussed re: privacy and ICANN in Hong Kong last week? Has anyone seen a video, transcript, or even perhaps the talking points? I suspect not, but figure I would at least ask... Thanks.

?Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/84faf269/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Oct  3 01:23:19 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:23:19 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fw=3A_Re=3A_=5BPublic_Comments=5D_Proposed_Da?=
 =?utf-8?q?tes_for_ICANN_Public_Meetings_2021=E2=80=932023?=
In-Reply-To: <bF4vXEssKBLNJ2PBO9uK_R-W763GcGYSE2VXQA34kHJgPi38BCrO6zsPUlJFATRTPje4poe_x_O_ZlTHiFpkuIcRp38KPdfaGZqC4zUTiYs=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThn++tVC5F4Hf-9VazPg2chmh2E9M_ECnqjC7DWu6zdfUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMCMt7oTDEDWnezdhX-C3UszGZa3Wj5arayqON-_VRexTUFEdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ihu_aWLj8gLyeiVHrpbu5zIDr-bwGQ4TSEKaxkf1f5FMAleh6XHFmMFHtwiaUPX98YThp5V9XGokqjhn00ZDz11Ef6rFlaFqLOeDtYlKqsQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAMCMt7p0A3A=HC9gP1iD3YAzxv_e4V+HLmbokGNngx_94cYC3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPqE2D-s4Fn6XhhwBHgZa3FUiWo1744FRMUztBCwxAErOiO=5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <AcBVbmqTFQU6MjYmdoTvzAG5fEYzVainYyzDoZjN6y4azDPSFzSYJxRqhemHaikpnRIkAJZFkelrU-ulZKWhxW_fvbJwcb7sI5_w9yfS0IY=@ferdeline.com>
 <14fbad23-916a-290e-5c1a-04500cb7bcde@yorku.ca>
 <jHBtTIVUiefI9sxk5dXViExOzM2EpKanvykgEXTOBNweUJO03ILBECgQT0lnBrSnEEFpzuU3tOS5SSGFeIBm-n5ZQtG-FOhQNuxHrSWgWlA=@ferdeline.com>
 <bF4vXEssKBLNJ2PBO9uK_R-W763GcGYSE2VXQA34kHJgPi38BCrO6zsPUlJFATRTPje4poe_x_O_ZlTHiFpkuIcRp38KPdfaGZqC4zUTiYs=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <4b4QsTHUCY4m_JGOrAUHgB57asU8ZmRAVszBj4Y-ENBV5lks9JxcKNfDuQpAou54CMft6coWcN51bD0ycsRqkayRSj8BNLuOst9FExR2Wog=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

Please consider endorsing this comment regarding the proposed dates for ICANN Public Meetings in 2021, 2022, and 2023: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qSKNSoqsoMbpPMIUmYFoobSknO3Ro2kW8POkTSxZRu0/edit?usp=sharing

The submission deadline is now, but obviously we cannot meet that.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings 2021?2023
> Local Time: 24 September 2017 10:50 PM
> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 21:50
> From: icann at FERDELINE.COM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I have now drafted a comment on the proposed meeting dates. [The Google Doc is here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qSKNSoqsoMbpPMIUmYFoobSknO3Ro2kW8POkTSxZRu0/edit?usp=sharing) If you identify any further conflicts with the meeting dates, please add it as a new bullet point in this document on or before this coming Friday. I will then forward the proposed comment along to the Policy Committee to consider endorsing.
>
> Many thanks,
> Ayden
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings 2021?2023
>> Local Time: 24 September 2017 1:28 PM
>> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 12:28
>> From: icann at FERDELINE.COM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Thanks all, the Canadian conflict with ICANN 71 is duly noted.
>>
>> Are there any other conflicts with statutory holidays, religious and/or cultural events, important political events, or recurring civil society events which we can foresee? The time is now to flag them; I have pasted the proposed meeting dates below for your review. Thank you!
>>
>> ?Ayden
>>
>> 2021
>> ICANN70 Community Forum: 20 ? 25 March 2021
>> ICANN71 Policy Forum: 28 June ? 1 July 2021
>> ICANN72 Annual General Meeting: 23 ? 29 October 2021
>>
>> 2022
>> ICANN73 Community Forum: 5 ? 10 March 2022
>> ICANN74 Policy Forum: 20 ? 23 June 2022
>> ICANN75 Annual General Meeting: 15 ? 21 October 2022
>>
>> 2023
>> ICANN76 Community Forum: 25 ? 30 March 2023
>> ICANN77 Policy Forum: 19 ? 22 June 2023
>> ICANN78 Annual General Meeting: 21 ? 27 October 2023
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings 2021?2023
>>> Local Time: 24 September 2017 1:01 AM
>>> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 00:01
>>> From: lanfran at yorku.ca
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>
>>> Ayden et. al.,
>>>
>>> The only official Canadian conflict (as already noted) is ICANN71 where it ends on July 1st. July 1st is Canada Day, a major national holiday and the start (in 2021) of a long summer weekend. One way to solve that would be for ICANN to once again meet in Canada. It met once in Toronto so Vancouver looks tempting....and they would dearly love to host ICANN. And then there are Montreal, Halifax, Calgary etc.
>>>
>>> ICANN71 there would solve the conflict with Canada Day and leave delegates to enjoy the ceremonies of the Canada Day long weekend in the True North, Strong and Free.
>>>
>>> Sam L.
>>>
>>> On 9/23/2017 5:15 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> As you may recall, ICANN is currently soliciting community feedback on the proposed dates for ICANN meetings to be held in the years 2021, 2022, and 2023.
>>>>
>>>> Time has really escaped us, and we are now just nine days away from the deadline for submitting a comment on this issue. So we need to start identifying potential conflicts with the proposed dates...
>>>>
>>>> A reminder that the proposed dates are as follows:
>>>>
>>>> 2021
>>>> ICANN70 Community Forum: 20 ? 25 March 2021
>>>> ICANN71 Policy Forum: 28 June ? 1 July 2021
>>>> ICANN72 Annual General Meeting: 23 ? 29 October 2021
>>>>
>>>> 2022
>>>> ICANN73 Community Forum: 5 ? 10 March 2022
>>>> ICANN74 Policy Forum: 20 ? 23 June 2022
>>>> ICANN75 Annual General Meeting: 15 ? 21 October 2022
>>>>
>>>> 2023
>>>> ICANN76 Community Forum: 25 ? 30 March 2023
>>>> ICANN77 Policy Forum: 19 ? 22 June 2023
>>>> ICANN78 Annual General Meeting: 21 ? 27 October 2023
>>>>
>>>> We have so far identified one conflict; 1 July is a national holiday in Canada.
>>>>
>>>> It would be helpful if we could all please check the above dates for any holidays which we celebrate, and note any conflicts with major events taking place in our countries of residence.
>>>>
>>>> Please feel free to reply to me off-list and I will collate them. I hope we can get a first draft of this comment ready by this coming Friday, 29 September. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings 2021?2023
>>>>> Local Time: 28 August 2017 5:34 AM
>>>>> UTC Time: 28 August 2017 04:34
>>>>> From: douglaskarel at GMAIL.COM
>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent points Ayden,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still trying to figure out what is happening in my life this week...far less for 2021 LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Karel
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27 August 2017 at 06:04, Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course Ayden, and those are good points too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a good point, and I do acknowledge that overlap. However I think the Address Supporting Organization will be reviewing the proposed dates to ensure there are no conflicts on their end. I'm not sure anyone else is looking out for conflicts with civil society-orientated events, so I think we should prioritise this. But of course I'll roll with the consensus opinion as to which dates we should ourselves be reviewing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings 2021?2023
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 27 August 2017 10:19 AM
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 27 August 2017 09:19
>>>>>>>> From: mike.oghia at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>> NCSG <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secondly, there are national and regional events where our members are active. I would not want an ICANN meeting to conflict with a regional IGF, though I would be more indifferent to an ICANN meeting conflicting with, say, an RIR meeting (though it seems unlikely to me that this would occur).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> N.B.: RIR dates are important since there is much overlap between the individuals involved with the technical work of ICANN and the RIR communities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Michael
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
>>> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>>>  ???????????????????????
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
>>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
>>> email:
>>> Lanfran at Yorku.ca
>>> Skype: slanfranco
>>> blog:
>>> https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
>>> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/1fe1ed74/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Oct  3 01:26:57 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:26:57 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCUC Charter Comment
Message-ID: <pRu7DmBfYBmPK_cck7EbohxxbXAay4M9vVBDgDOhUhfqkA6Xj6jEWX57iAcjTXotxMbSQq3QoVJCwcJuQSa4ffaqXPzpGv7_CPWQdK8oBUg=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

Kindly consider endorsing this comment on Proposed Changes to the NCUC Charter. The submission deadline is in 24 hours time; this statement is symbolic rather than substantive. Thank you!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QIofPSTxt1rV-BihcIsImpUhl4i5HhLnSuV8PgyuAuk/edit?usp=sharing

Best wishes, Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171002/8c9d1028/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct  3 02:11:54 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:11:54 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
In-Reply-To: <oAYa8pI9kuZjvAuALAuEw_cMuZcyE7ddbesRYKgFiQwuOmRnPOH3YKyPeYkXY9otnT2wCpTDxDeSYie4nJIIS4bwy10BL6hFtpZ-M36RQSg=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20170925095612.no7std7w3iz3muy3@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sThnwfkP6T_ua6Qy5eF6c0wvN6NHihuO034gh1q1kSr+hpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmddyjTUjjz7pv-2xFAH1YFy3-fSpBkJY-kKJx0vv0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002133424.troye56vc4gqrtqm@tarvainen.info>
 <CAH5sTh=s-jfVtjW68yLCMfTRfNxuDOsZWc3iwctr+kvN5XzGfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171002160656.gxv6nbjptykizdz7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40t6VWALW-4=WAvNKtNXxDSuF9U+OeVJvJcdXUUnpFpenA@mail.gmail.com>
 <oAYa8pI9kuZjvAuALAuEw_cMuZcyE7ddbesRYKgFiQwuOmRnPOH3YKyPeYkXY9otnT2wCpTDxDeSYie4nJIIS4bwy10BL6hFtpZ-M36RQSg=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmLRcCz74u_CbeLz4oUfsA-VqA82L_Z5YBC0PFaO=OEAg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,


I did express our "unhappiness" about this late request for nomination in
my first message to Heather. In fact, she already sensed that during the
call from Farzaneh question as she tried to explain what happened. As we
discussed, we wanted to make that point clear (myself urged for that) and I
think the message was received. We then moved to discuss vice-chair
position. there was also another thread in NCPH list (my understanding, all
councilors were added ) and CSG quickly tried to explain what happened (and
trying to move quickly  ;)).
I probably failed to report that in due time. hope that clarifies.

Best,

Rafik



2017-10-03 3:06 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> I have to say Rafik, I'm very surprised by this thread, because I did not
> think this was the path that we had agreed to take forward. I do not oppose
> Heather chairing Council, particularly following our call last week where
> we had a number of questions clarified, but I thought we were going to
> impress upon the CSG our frustration with them choosing a Chair behind
> closed doors without involving us. It does not sound to me like this
> happened?
>
> ?Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Chair election
> Local Time: 2 October 2017 5:20 PM
> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 16:20
> From: pileleji at ymca.gm
> To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>, ncsg-pc <
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hello Tapani,
> Was to respond sorry for the delay, I support  the approach as rightly
> stated by Matthew. We need  importantly to have a process for this.
>
> Thank you
> Poncelet
>
> On 2 October 2017 at 16:06, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> wrote:
>
>> So as Rafik sleeps, I'll take that as instructions and absent
>> objections will take it upon myself to send the nomination to the
>> secretariat together with CSG (apparently represented in this case by
>> Wolf-Ulrich, even though CSG doesn't have a chair as such).
>>
>> So far out of 11 PC members I count Rafik, Stefania, Martin, myself
>> and Matthew in favour, still waiting for Marilia, Stephanie, Tatiana,
>> Ayden, Poncelet and Juan.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Thanks for responses, waiting for other members opinions. I may be
>> offline
>> > soon (midnight soon here). If there is no strong objections by
>> 19:00UTC, we
>> > should inform CSG about our support and then send a joint nomination.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Rafik
>> >
>> >
>> > On Oct 2, 2017 10:34 PM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > Tapani
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:41:53PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
>> > rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > While I expressed interest to put my name for chair election, I am
>> fine
>> > > with running for vice-chair instead considering the current
>> > > context.  taking the opportunity to run as vice-chair seems more
>> > reasonable
>> > > for the time being. We had a call with Heather last week and also
>> ongoing
>> > > discussion between councilors about the nomination. I understand
>> there may
>> > > some concerns but we can play our role to keep GNSO leadership on
>> track.
>> > it
>> > > also seems that both groups didn't start the process in due time, nor
>> we
>> > > had a process to start with.
>> > >
>> > > I advise that we go with supporting Heather nomination from NCPH and
>> > > continue the discussion with CSG about vice-chair position and
>> election
>> > > processes (not waiting for intersessional to do the later).
>> > >
>> > > We have few hours left, so we should share our decision with CSG asap
>> and
>> > > make the nomination before midnight at UTC time.
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > >
>> > > Rafik
>> > >
>> > > 2017-09-26 8:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > for the record, as I was nominated by Ayden a few weeks ago in PC
>> list
>> > I
>> > > > am also interested to be nominated by NCPH to run for GNSO chair
>> > election.
>> > > > I am looking forward NCSG to support my candidature and suggest it
>> to
>> > CSG
>> > > > during the house nomination process.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > >
>> > > > Rafik
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2017-09-25 18:56 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <
>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>> > >:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Dear PC,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Deadline for GNSO Chair candidate nominations is October 1, that
>> > > >> is the end of this week.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Background:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The rules say that each house will be allowed to nominate
>> > > >> one candidate. Meaning we'd have to agree with CSG.
>> > > >> And we'd have to find a candidate the other house will
>> > > >> also accept.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Time is short. We really should open talks with CSG now.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And if we want one of ours to run for Chair, we'd also
>> > > >> need to talk with CPH at the same time.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Chair needs 60% supermajority in the council to be elected.
>> > > >> My math says that works out to 16 councillors, when CPH
>> > > >> and NCPH both have 13 (6 per constituency plus two NCAs).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Eligible for nomination are all new councillors, including
>> > > >> all NCAs (even non-voting NCA).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> For more details cf. 2.2 in GNSO Operating Procedures.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And as you may recall, if CSG gets the Chair we'll get Vice Chair,
>> as
>> > > >> per the procedure we agreed on.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I haven't heard anything from CSG after Jo'burg, but there I got
>> > > >> the impression they'd be likely to offer Heather Forrest.
>> > > >> Note that if she's elected she could only serve one year,
>> > > >> as she's term-limited as councillor.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171003/8897631d/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct  3 02:16:51 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:16:51 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?Fw=3A_Re=3A_=5BPublic_Comments=5D_Proposed_Da?=
	=?utf-8?q?tes_for_ICANN_Public_Meetings_2021=E2=80=932023?=
In-Reply-To: <4b4QsTHUCY4m_JGOrAUHgB57asU8ZmRAVszBj4Y-ENBV5lks9JxcKNfDuQpAou54CMft6coWcN51bD0ycsRqkayRSj8BNLuOst9FExR2Wog=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThn++tVC5F4Hf-9VazPg2chmh2E9M_ECnqjC7DWu6zdfUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMCMt7oTDEDWnezdhX-C3UszGZa3Wj5arayqON-_VRexTUFEdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ihu_aWLj8gLyeiVHrpbu5zIDr-bwGQ4TSEKaxkf1f5FMAleh6XHFmMFHtwiaUPX98YThp5V9XGokqjhn00ZDz11Ef6rFlaFqLOeDtYlKqsQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAMCMt7p0A3A=HC9gP1iD3YAzxv_e4V+HLmbokGNngx_94cYC3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPqE2D-s4Fn6XhhwBHgZa3FUiWo1744FRMUztBCwxAErOiO=5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <AcBVbmqTFQU6MjYmdoTvzAG5fEYzVainYyzDoZjN6y4azDPSFzSYJxRqhemHaikpnRIkAJZFkelrU-ulZKWhxW_fvbJwcb7sI5_w9yfS0IY=@ferdeline.com>
 <14fbad23-916a-290e-5c1a-04500cb7bcde@yorku.ca>
 <jHBtTIVUiefI9sxk5dXViExOzM2EpKanvykgEXTOBNweUJO03ILBECgQT0lnBrSnEEFpzuU3tOS5SSGFeIBm-n5ZQtG-FOhQNuxHrSWgWlA=@ferdeline.com>
 <bF4vXEssKBLNJ2PBO9uK_R-W763GcGYSE2VXQA34kHJgPi38BCrO6zsPUlJFATRTPje4poe_x_O_ZlTHiFpkuIcRp38KPdfaGZqC4zUTiYs=@ferdeline.com>
 <4b4QsTHUCY4m_JGOrAUHgB57asU8ZmRAVszBj4Y-ENBV5lks9JxcKNfDuQpAou54CMft6coWcN51bD0ycsRqkayRSj8BNLuOst9FExR2Wog=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk9p8nBsu4iqBKXWAt9=Pvgcfbn6L_YZgmRxAbGFVSx-A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

Thanks for drafting this, I think that is quite straightforward and not
controversial. Let's set 24 hours to hear from other members. if there is
no objection and with clear support, I will submit the comment on behalf of
NCSG.

My only comment is I am really wondering if we should take national
holidays in consideration and if yes to which extent. for example, I see
that one meeting will clash with Tunisia independence day (20th March).

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-03 7:23 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Please consider endorsing this comment regarding the proposed dates for
> ICANN Public Meetings in 2021, 2022, and 2023:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qSKNSoqsoMbpPMIUmYFoobSknO3Ro
> 2kW8POkTSxZRu0/edit?usp=sharing
>
> The submission deadline is now, but obviously we cannot meet that.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
> 2021?2023
> Local Time: 24 September 2017 10:50 PM
> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 21:50
> From: icann at FERDELINE.COM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I have now drafted a comment on the proposed meeting dates. The Google
> Doc is here.
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qSKNSoqsoMbpPMIUmYFoobSknO3Ro2kW8POkTSxZRu0/edit?usp=sharing>
> If you identify any further conflicts with the meeting dates, please add it
> as a new bullet point in this document on or before this coming Friday. I
> will then forward the proposed comment along to the Policy Committee to
> consider endorsing.
>
> Many thanks,
> Ayden
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
> 2021?2023
> Local Time: 24 September 2017 1:28 PM
> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 12:28
> From: icann at FERDELINE.COM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Thanks all, the Canadian conflict with ICANN 71 is duly noted.
>
> Are there any other conflicts with statutory holidays, religious and/or
> cultural events, important political events, or recurring civil society
> events which we can foresee? The time is now to flag them; I have pasted
> the proposed meeting dates below for your review. Thank you!
>
> ?Ayden
>
> 2021
> ICANN70 Community Forum: 20 ? 25 March 2021
> ICANN71 Policy Forum: 28 June ? 1 July 2021
> ICANN72 Annual General Meeting: 23 ? 29 October 2021
>
> 2022
> ICANN73 Community Forum: 5 ? 10 March 2022
> ICANN74 Policy Forum: 20 ? 23 June 2022
> ICANN75 Annual General Meeting: 15 ? 21 October 2022
>
> 2023
> ICANN76 Community Forum: 25 ? 30 March 2023
> ICANN77 Policy Forum: 19 ? 22 June 2023
> ICANN78 Annual General Meeting: 21 ? 27 October 2023
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
> 2021?2023
> Local Time: 24 September 2017 1:01 AM
> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 00:01
> From: lanfran at yorku.ca
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
>
> Ayden et. al.,
>
> The only official Canadian conflict (as already noted) is ICANN71 where it
> ends on July 1st. July 1st is Canada Day, a major national holiday and the
> start (in 2021) of a long summer weekend. One way to solve that would be
> for ICANN to once again meet in Canada. It met once in Toronto so Vancouver
> looks tempting....and they would dearly love to host ICANN. And then there
> are Montreal, Halifax, Calgary etc.
>
> ICANN71 there would solve the conflict with Canada Day and leave delegates
> to enjoy the ceremonies of the Canada Day long weekend in the True North,
> Strong and Free.
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 9/23/2017 5:15 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As you may recall, ICANN is currently soliciting community feedback on the
> proposed dates for ICANN meetings to be held in the years 2021, 2022, and
> 2023.
>
> Time has really escaped us, and we are now just nine days away from the
> deadline for submitting a comment on this issue. So we need to start
> identifying potential conflicts with the proposed dates...
>
> A reminder that the proposed dates are as follows:
>
> 2021
> ICANN70 Community Forum: 20 ? 25 March 2021
> ICANN71 Policy Forum: 28 June ? 1 July 2021
> ICANN72 Annual General Meeting: 23 ? 29 October 2021
>
> 2022
> ICANN73 Community Forum: 5 ? 10 March 2022
> ICANN74 Policy Forum: 20 ? 23 June 2022
> ICANN75 Annual General Meeting: 15 ? 21 October 2022
>
> 2023
> ICANN76 Community Forum: 25 ? 30 March 2023
> ICANN77 Policy Forum: 19 ? 22 June 2023
> ICANN78 Annual General Meeting: 21 ? 27 October 2023
>
> We have so far identified one conflict; 1 July is a national holiday in
> Canada.
>
> *It would be helpful if we could all please check the above dates for any
> holidays which we celebrate, and note any conflicts with major events
> taking place in our countries of residence.*
>
> Please feel free to reply to me off-list and I will collate them. I hope
> we can get a first draft of this comment ready by this coming Friday, 29
> September. Thanks!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
> 2021?2023
> Local Time: 28 August 2017 5:34 AM
> UTC Time: 28 August 2017 04:34
> From: douglaskarel at GMAIL.COM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Excellent points Ayden,
>
> I am still trying to figure out what is happening in my life this
> week...far less for 2021 LOL!
>
> Karel
>
> On 27 August 2017 at 06:04, Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course Ayden, and those are good points too.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> That's a good point, and I do acknowledge that overlap. However I think
>>> the Address Supporting Organization will be reviewing the proposed dates to
>>> ensure there are no conflicts on their end. I'm not sure anyone else is
>>> looking out for conflicts with civil society-orientated events, so I think
>>> we should prioritise this. But of course I'll roll with the consensus
>>> opinion as to which dates we should ourselves be reviewing.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
>>> 2021?2023
>>> Local Time: 27 August 2017 10:19 AM
>>> UTC Time: 27 August 2017 09:19
>>> From: mike.oghia at gmail.com
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> NCSG <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Secondly, there are national and regional events where our members are
>>>> active. I would not want an ICANN meeting to conflict with a regional IGF,
>>>> though I would be more indifferent to an ICANN meeting conflicting with,
>>>> say, an RIR meeting (though it seems unlikely to me that this would occur).
>>>>
>>>
>>> N.B.: RIR dates are important since there is much overlap between the
>>> individuals involved with the technical work of ICANN and the RIR
>>> communities.
>>>
>>> -Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>  ???????????????????????
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 <+1%20613-476-0429> cell: +1 416-816-2852 <+1%20416-816-2852>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171003/2c9a0932/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct  3 02:18:04 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:18:04 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCUC Charter Comment
In-Reply-To: <pRu7DmBfYBmPK_cck7EbohxxbXAay4M9vVBDgDOhUhfqkA6Xj6jEWX57iAcjTXotxMbSQq3QoVJCwcJuQSa4ffaqXPzpGv7_CPWQdK8oBUg=@ferdeline.com>
References: <pRu7DmBfYBmPK_cck7EbohxxbXAay4M9vVBDgDOhUhfqkA6Xj6jEWX57iAcjTXotxMbSQq3QoVJCwcJuQSa4ffaqXPzpGv7_CPWQdK8oBUg=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn9tOHXPN838dz+GqxSHvciRrS5kfBEUJCE+kaaULJ2Lg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

Thanks again for taking the lead for this. we can set the same deadline of
24hours to hear from other members. with no objection, we can submit the
comment. as you explained it is quite a symbolic statement.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-03 7:26 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Kindly consider endorsing this comment on Proposed Changes to the NCUC
> Charter. The submission deadline is in 24 hours time; this statement is
> symbolic rather than substantive. Thank you!
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QIofPSTxt1rV-
> BihcIsImpUhl4i5HhLnSuV8PgyuAuk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171003/04c5f53f/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct  3 02:21:21 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:21:21 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Hong Kong Session
In-Reply-To: <oZWsUSbLIeFZpAritDn3FuLe2GgCGyiwYT0fOd6YtBloN98csIRvr0066LFAX5ZPifkRfE9oYCI-gX9XIc0e6PK98WGDMDktnXotOAiece4=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oZWsUSbLIeFZpAritDn3FuLe2GgCGyiwYT0fOd6YtBloN98csIRvr0066LFAX5ZPifkRfE9oYCI-gX9XIc0e6PK98WGDMDktnXotOAiece4=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=02t_xr0ZYLVMOHxetKT0y7567z70Zbh_zmJnK-Gs_7A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

I didn't hear any about that meeting. I think Nigel Hickson was also in
Hong Kong and I can use the CCWG-IG to ask him about the meeting and where
to find transcripts.
I thought Stephane volunteered to draft a letter about the other version of
Whois and privacy story.
We have to push for more transparency on what is going on about
GDPR efforts from ICANN staff and its leadership. I reiterate that we need
more official request so it will be documented.
there is also the webinar this week.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-03 7:20 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Did anyone hear anything regarding what Theresa and Becky discussed re:
> privacy and ICANN in Hong Kong last week? Has anyone seen a video,
> transcript, or even perhaps the talking points? I suspect not, but figure I
> would at least ask... Thanks.
>
> ?Ayden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171003/8c909e90/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct  3 02:26:01 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:26:01 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
In-Reply-To: <3789ab80-d6eb-7fa2-c959-22620a81ec6f@kathykleiman.com>
References: <CAH5sThkBc9uQncOzDsQ0D5rr+24XdFPkYQZL55JzwAse1wAYnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <WMY1QKBvq9BO64C1XK8VM5nBPzJ5dt9l5bWVDts3wL6460ai6ffaXkvOGQYW60QStzufqvBEjaVhbaUqu8we2jeKIz2PJJErliYDp7bjDP8=@ferdeline.com>
 <3789ab80-d6eb-7fa2-c959-22620a81ec6f@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmm=h67+20kHsDGbBTDe+o1bJVWLGo5WjzzY_CS5ATbtg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kathy,

I usually follow the comments we submit and check if they were included in
the staff report, in particular after the deadline is passed. However, I
cannot confidently confirm that substance is captured accurately, I believe
that the penholders are more able to do so.
My understanding is that the final SADAG report will be sent to CCT-RT . We
can monitor for the staff report, but for the final SADAG report, we need
someone who is following the RT activities.

Best,

Rafik






2017-10-03 3:20 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>:

> I am an observer, and support the submission of these comments. Tx to all
> who drafted and edited!
>
> Who will be able to report back to the PC whether the suggestions were a)
> incorporated into the ICANN Staff Report, and b) incorporated into the
> final SADAG report? (We have found that follow-up often makes a difference
> in the final product.)
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 10/2/2017 1:52 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have now reviewed this comment and have made a number of suggested edits
> to improve clarity. But in terms of substance, I agree with Farell's
> analysis and think it is sound. I am pleased to endorse the submission of
> this comment.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
> Local Time: 2 October 2017 6:17 AM
> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 05:17
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sam and Farell made amendments to the draft comment to add the input from
> NCSG list, https://docs.google.com/document/d/
> 10K4cnqMrhRnF1mZFtBbQKpzGNMBcZv2OCjvly_8eYoQ/edit#.
>
> The deadline for submission passed(it was the 27th September) so we need
> to do a quick review and decide about endorsing or not the comment, not
> later than 4th Oct.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171003/aedd8c43/attachment.htm>

From matthew at intpolicy.com  Tue Oct  3 10:22:01 2017
From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 07:22:01 -0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Hong Kong Session
In-Reply-To: <oZWsUSbLIeFZpAritDn3FuLe2GgCGyiwYT0fOd6YtBloN98csIRvr0066LFAX5ZPifkRfE9oYCI-gX9XIc0e6PK98WGDMDktnXotOAiece4=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oZWsUSbLIeFZpAritDn3FuLe2GgCGyiwYT0fOd6YtBloN98csIRvr0066LFAX5ZPifkRfE9oYCI-gX9XIc0e6PK98WGDMDktnXotOAiece4=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <b44ae061-c3a8-9c00-4a0d-39e1301a300e@intpolicy.com>

I haven't heard anything yet.


On 02/10/2017 23:20, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Did anyone hear anything regarding what Theresa and Becky discussed 
> re: privacy and ICANN in Hong Kong last week? Has anyone seen a video, 
> transcript, or even perhaps the talking points? I suspect not, but 
> figure I would at least ask... Thanks.
>
> ?Ayden
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171003/894f15ac/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 02:09:42 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 08:09:42 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkBc9uQncOzDsQ0D5rr+24XdFPkYQZL55JzwAse1wAYnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkBc9uQncOzDsQ0D5rr+24XdFPkYQZL55JzwAse1wAYnA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThktg1NYtwjdS=KcrY9scbdeo=jkefnAhNuHV3W9RS1Png@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

We need to act quickly for this comment. staff already started working on
the report. if we want to get our comments included we should submit by end
of day (UTC) this Wednesday.

Ayden edits were accepted, and we still need your review and comments on
the draft.

Best,

Rafik
2017-10-02 14:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> Sam and Farell made amendments to the draft comment to add the input from
> NCSG list, https://docs.google.com/document/d/
> 10K4cnqMrhRnF1mZFtBbQKpzGNMBcZv2OCjvly_8eYoQ/edit#.
>
> The deadline for submission passed(it was the 27th September) so we need
> to do a quick review and decide about endorsing or not the comment, not
> later than 4th Oct.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171004/a089baad/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 06:02:45 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 12:02:45 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCUC Charter Comment
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn9tOHXPN838dz+GqxSHvciRrS5kfBEUJCE+kaaULJ2Lg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <pRu7DmBfYBmPK_cck7EbohxxbXAay4M9vVBDgDOhUhfqkA6Xj6jEWX57iAcjTXotxMbSQq3QoVJCwcJuQSa4ffaqXPzpGv7_CPWQdK8oBUg=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThn9tOHXPN838dz+GqxSHvciRrS5kfBEUJCE+kaaULJ2Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkhzPZh33GbfdidKjWYrKmMU8=vEhTNvw0z5C0QQW0x3g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

The deadline (24hours) already passed and seeing no objection, we can
consider it as endorsed by PC. I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-03 8:18 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks again for taking the lead for this. we can set the same deadline of
> 24hours to hear from other members. with no objection, we can submit the
> comment. as you explained it is quite a symbolic statement.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-03 7:26 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Kindly consider endorsing this comment on Proposed Changes to the NCUC
>> Charter. The submission deadline is in 24 hours time; this statement is
>> symbolic rather than substantive. Thank you!
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QIofPSTxt1rV-BihcIsImpUh
>> l4i5HhLnSuV8PgyuAuk/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171004/8b4fef0e/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 06:04:10 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 12:04:10 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?Fw=3A_Re=3A_=5BPublic_Comments=5D_Proposed_Da?=
	=?utf-8?q?tes_for_ICANN_Public_Meetings_2021=E2=80=932023?=
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk9p8nBsu4iqBKXWAt9=Pvgcfbn6L_YZgmRxAbGFVSx-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn++tVC5F4Hf-9VazPg2chmh2E9M_ECnqjC7DWu6zdfUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMCMt7oTDEDWnezdhX-C3UszGZa3Wj5arayqON-_VRexTUFEdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ihu_aWLj8gLyeiVHrpbu5zIDr-bwGQ4TSEKaxkf1f5FMAleh6XHFmMFHtwiaUPX98YThp5V9XGokqjhn00ZDz11Ef6rFlaFqLOeDtYlKqsQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAMCMt7p0A3A=HC9gP1iD3YAzxv_e4V+HLmbokGNngx_94cYC3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPqE2D-s4Fn6XhhwBHgZa3FUiWo1744FRMUztBCwxAErOiO=5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <AcBVbmqTFQU6MjYmdoTvzAG5fEYzVainYyzDoZjN6y4azDPSFzSYJxRqhemHaikpnRIkAJZFkelrU-ulZKWhxW_fvbJwcb7sI5_w9yfS0IY=@ferdeline.com>
 <14fbad23-916a-290e-5c1a-04500cb7bcde@yorku.ca>
 <jHBtTIVUiefI9sxk5dXViExOzM2EpKanvykgEXTOBNweUJO03ILBECgQT0lnBrSnEEFpzuU3tOS5SSGFeIBm-n5ZQtG-FOhQNuxHrSWgWlA=@ferdeline.com>
 <bF4vXEssKBLNJ2PBO9uK_R-W763GcGYSE2VXQA34kHJgPi38BCrO6zsPUlJFATRTPje4poe_x_O_ZlTHiFpkuIcRp38KPdfaGZqC4zUTiYs=@ferdeline.com>
 <4b4QsTHUCY4m_JGOrAUHgB57asU8ZmRAVszBj4Y-ENBV5lks9JxcKNfDuQpAou54CMft6coWcN51bD0ycsRqkayRSj8BNLuOst9FExR2Wog=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThk9p8nBsu4iqBKXWAt9=Pvgcfbn6L_YZgmRxAbGFVSx-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk4Oe44C4MMOwgiEm+vuNr85f0vCOABS79NJnn3W5MgaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

like the other public comment, the deadline (24hours) already passed and
seeing no objection, we can consider it as endorsed by PC.
I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-03 8:16 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks for drafting this, I think that is quite straightforward and not
> controversial. Let's set 24 hours to hear from other members. if there is
> no objection and with clear support, I will submit the comment on behalf of
> NCSG.
>
> My only comment is I am really wondering if we should take national
> holidays in consideration and if yes to which extent. for example, I see
> that one meeting will clash with Tunisia independence day (20th March).
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-03 7:23 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please consider endorsing this comment regarding the proposed dates for
>> ICANN Public Meetings in 2021, 2022, and 2023:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qSKNSoqsoMbpPMIUmYFoobSk
>> nO3Ro2kW8POkTSxZRu0/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> The submission deadline is now, but obviously we cannot meet that.
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
>> 2021?2023
>> Local Time: 24 September 2017 10:50 PM
>> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 21:50
>> From: icann at FERDELINE.COM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> I have now drafted a comment on the proposed meeting dates. The Google
>> Doc is here.
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qSKNSoqsoMbpPMIUmYFoobSknO3Ro2kW8POkTSxZRu0/edit?usp=sharing>
>> If you identify any further conflicts with the meeting dates, please add it
>> as a new bullet point in this document on or before this coming Friday. I
>> will then forward the proposed comment along to the Policy Committee to
>> consider endorsing.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
>> 2021?2023
>> Local Time: 24 September 2017 1:28 PM
>> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 12:28
>> From: icann at FERDELINE.COM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Thanks all, the Canadian conflict with ICANN 71 is duly noted.
>>
>> Are there any other conflicts with statutory holidays, religious and/or
>> cultural events, important political events, or recurring civil society
>> events which we can foresee? The time is now to flag them; I have pasted
>> the proposed meeting dates below for your review. Thank you!
>>
>> ?Ayden
>>
>> 2021
>> ICANN70 Community Forum: 20 ? 25 March 2021
>> ICANN71 Policy Forum: 28 June ? 1 July 2021
>> ICANN72 Annual General Meeting: 23 ? 29 October 2021
>>
>> 2022
>> ICANN73 Community Forum: 5 ? 10 March 2022
>> ICANN74 Policy Forum: 20 ? 23 June 2022
>> ICANN75 Annual General Meeting: 15 ? 21 October 2022
>>
>> 2023
>> ICANN76 Community Forum: 25 ? 30 March 2023
>> ICANN77 Policy Forum: 19 ? 22 June 2023
>> ICANN78 Annual General Meeting: 21 ? 27 October 2023
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
>> 2021?2023
>> Local Time: 24 September 2017 1:01 AM
>> UTC Time: 24 September 2017 00:01
>> From: lanfran at yorku.ca
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>>
>> Ayden et. al.,
>>
>> The only official Canadian conflict (as already noted) is ICANN71 where
>> it ends on July 1st. July 1st is Canada Day, a major national holiday and
>> the start (in 2021) of a long summer weekend. One way to solve that would
>> be for ICANN to once again meet in Canada. It met once in Toronto so
>> Vancouver looks tempting....and they would dearly love to host ICANN. And
>> then there are Montreal, Halifax, Calgary etc.
>>
>> ICANN71 there would solve the conflict with Canada Day and leave
>> delegates to enjoy the ceremonies of the Canada Day long weekend in the
>> True North, Strong and Free.
>>
>> Sam L.
>>
>> On 9/23/2017 5:15 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As you may recall, ICANN is currently soliciting community feedback on
>> the proposed dates for ICANN meetings to be held in the years 2021, 2022,
>> and 2023.
>>
>> Time has really escaped us, and we are now just nine days away from the
>> deadline for submitting a comment on this issue. So we need to start
>> identifying potential conflicts with the proposed dates...
>>
>> A reminder that the proposed dates are as follows:
>>
>> 2021
>> ICANN70 Community Forum: 20 ? 25 March 2021
>> ICANN71 Policy Forum: 28 June ? 1 July 2021
>> ICANN72 Annual General Meeting: 23 ? 29 October 2021
>>
>> 2022
>> ICANN73 Community Forum: 5 ? 10 March 2022
>> ICANN74 Policy Forum: 20 ? 23 June 2022
>> ICANN75 Annual General Meeting: 15 ? 21 October 2022
>>
>> 2023
>> ICANN76 Community Forum: 25 ? 30 March 2023
>> ICANN77 Policy Forum: 19 ? 22 June 2023
>> ICANN78 Annual General Meeting: 21 ? 27 October 2023
>>
>> We have so far identified one conflict; 1 July is a national holiday in
>> Canada.
>>
>> *It would be helpful if we could all please check the above dates for any
>> holidays which we celebrate, and note any conflicts with major events
>> taking place in our countries of residence.*
>>
>> Please feel free to reply to me off-list and I will collate them. I hope
>> we can get a first draft of this comment ready by this coming Friday, 29
>> September. Thanks!
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
>> 2021?2023
>> Local Time: 28 August 2017 5:34 AM
>> UTC Time: 28 August 2017 04:34
>> From: douglaskarel at GMAIL.COM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Excellent points Ayden,
>>
>> I am still trying to figure out what is happening in my life this
>> week...far less for 2021 LOL!
>>
>> Karel
>>
>> On 27 August 2017 at 06:04, Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course Ayden, and those are good points too.
>>>
>>> -Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>> That's a good point, and I do acknowledge that overlap. However I think
>>>> the Address Supporting Organization will be reviewing the proposed dates to
>>>> ensure there are no conflicts on their end. I'm not sure anyone else is
>>>> looking out for conflicts with civil society-orientated events, so I think
>>>> we should prioritise this. But of course I'll roll with the consensus
>>>> opinion as to which dates we should ourselves be reviewing.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Proposed Dates for ICANN Public Meetings
>>>> 2021?2023
>>>> Local Time: 27 August 2017 10:19 AM
>>>> UTC Time: 27 August 2017 09:19
>>>> From: mike.oghia at gmail.com
>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>> NCSG <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, there are national and regional events where our members are
>>>>> active. I would not want an ICANN meeting to conflict with a regional IGF,
>>>>> though I would be more indifferent to an ICANN meeting conflicting with,
>>>>> say, an RIR meeting (though it seems unlikely to me that this would occur).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> N.B.: RIR dates are important since there is much overlap between the
>>>> individuals involved with the technical work of ICANN and the RIR
>>>> communities.
>>>>
>>>> -Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
>> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>>  ???????????????????????
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
>> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
>> blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
>> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 <+1%20613-476-0429> cell: +1 416-816-2852 <+1%20416-816-2852>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171004/fdaed4b7/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Oct  4 15:48:16 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:48:16 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] SADAC comment new draft version
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThktg1NYtwjdS=KcrY9scbdeo=jkefnAhNuHV3W9RS1Png@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkBc9uQncOzDsQ0D5rr+24XdFPkYQZL55JzwAse1wAYnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThktg1NYtwjdS=KcrY9scbdeo=jkefnAhNuHV3W9RS1Png@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkCjHBuJusYuCL5SyGF6+iX+7gW3EvtFKLwd8VbuVU1cQ@mail.gmail.com>

hi all,

the deadline for late submission is just a few hours away. I attached the
final and clean version of the comment. seeing no objection and since the
draft went through 2 reviews in NCSG list and Farell included the comments
and edits made there, we can assume that the comment can be endorsed.
unless I see a strong objection, I will submit the comment by 15:00UTC
today.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-04 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> We need to act quickly for this comment. staff already started working on
> the report. if we want to get our comments included we should submit by end
> of day (UTC) this Wednesday.
>
> Ayden edits were accepted, and we still need your review and comments on
> the draft.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-02 14:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sam and Farell made amendments to the draft comment to add the input from
>> NCSG list, https://docs.google.com/document/d/10K4cnqMrhRnF1mZFtB
>> bQKpzGNMBcZv2OCjvly_8eYoQ/edit#.
>>
>> The deadline for submission passed(it was the 27th September) so we need
>> to do a quick review and decide about endorsing or not the comment, not
>> later than 4th Oct.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171004/398c1d21/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs (SADAG) Report NCSG Comment.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 89333 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171004/398c1d21/attachment.pdf>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Oct  4 19:23:25 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 12:23:25 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>

We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my strong views on this issue. Thanks!

Ayden

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James M. Bladel<[jbladel at godaddy.com](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com class=)>
Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
To: GNSO Council List <[council at gnso.icann.org](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org
)>
Cc:

> Councilors ?
>
> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>
> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>
> Thank you,
>
> J.
>
> ------------------
>
> James Bladel
>
> GNSO Chair
>
> From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
> To: "jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Subject: Community Resource Consultation
>
> Dear James,
>
> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines.
>
> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17 November 2017.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrick
>
> --
>
> Patrick L. Jones
>
> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171004/cf6663b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Community Travel Support Consultation[2].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 746475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171004/cf6663b0/attachment.docx>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Wed Oct  4 20:08:55 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:08:55 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40s5ZF9W3WT=K5ovGWdYgKYMkVarRGB_LnAqqBdwj_GKfA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ayden,

Thanks for the info, can you share your thoughts as a start here before
call is scheduled.

Thank you

Poncelet

On 4 October 2017 at 16:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can
> schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common
> position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my
> strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>
> Ayden
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James M. Bladel<jbladel at godaddy.com <jbladel at godaddy.com+class=>>
> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc:
>
> Councilors ?
>
>
>
> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel
> support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to
> SG/C leaders.
>
>
> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either
> AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu
> Dhabi.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> J.
>
> ------------------
>
> James Bladel
>
> GNSO Chair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
> *To: *"jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Cc: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Community Resource Consultation
>
>
>
> Dear James,
>
>
>
> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN
> organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources.
> The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations,
> advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community
> Travel Support Guidelines.
>
>
>
> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is
> attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between
> now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome
> the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual
> notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>
>
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward
> to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17
> November 2017.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Patrick L. Jones
>
> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171004/f4e31ed1/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Oct  5 04:23:48 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:23:48 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnLHeuQOavYsdJgg8biYno7_dyHRHaM_fx3HfO0keCrhQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

any reason to have the call this week? the consultation itself is running
till 17th Nov and I don't think the council will take action than
discussing if the topic is added to the agenda. skimming through the
questions, they seem more relevant to how to groups like NCSG manages the
travel support.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-05 1:23 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can
> schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common
> position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my
> strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>
> Ayden
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James M. Bladel<jbladel at godaddy.com <jbladel at godaddy.com+class=>>
> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc:
>
> Councilors ?
>
>
>
> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel
> support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to
> SG/C leaders.
>
>
> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either
> AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu
> Dhabi.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> J.
>
> ------------------
>
> James Bladel
>
> GNSO Chair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
> *To: *"jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Cc: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Community Resource Consultation
>
>
>
> Dear James,
>
>
>
> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN
> organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources.
> The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations,
> advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community
> Travel Support Guidelines.
>
>
>
> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is
> attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between
> now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome
> the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual
> notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>
>
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward
> to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17
> November 2017.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Patrick L. Jones
>
> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/1e356ce3/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Oct  5 10:47:12 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 03:47:12 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnLHeuQOavYsdJgg8biYno7_dyHRHaM_fx3HfO0keCrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThnLHeuQOavYsdJgg8biYno7_dyHRHaM_fx3HfO0keCrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <UgpDqHn-zofbxiu4GWK3he_HAlUosRsiX9v7-C-DQXa8Awezh41w1MU5DA063s0OWNAz_sY8XVeMNP7W6uehSXKUQkZInGBAURK56tMOlCQ=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Rafik,

That is a good point; provided Council will not be making any binding commitments on next week's call, it is not necessary to have a discussion this week. If we have time to discuss this on the PC call next week that would be great. Thanks.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> Local Time: 5 October 2017 2:23 AM
> UTC Time: 5 October 2017 01:23
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
> any reason to have the call this week? the consultation itself is running till 17th Nov and I don't think the council will take action than discussing if the topic is added to the agenda. skimming through the questions, they seem more relevant to how to groups like NCSG manages the travel support.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-05 1:23 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>> Ayden
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: James M. Bladel<[jbladel at godaddy.com](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com+class=)>
>> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
>> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Cc:
>>
>>> Councilors ?
>>>
>>> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>>>
>>> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> James Bladel
>>>
>>> GNSO Chair
>>>
>>> From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org>
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
>>> To: "jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Community Resource Consultation
>>>
>>> Dear James,
>>>
>>> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines.
>>>
>>> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>>>
>>> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17 November 2017.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Patrick L. Jones
>>>
>>> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/0957f35e/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Thu Oct  5 11:21:24 2017
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:21:24 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>

I agree with having a call or at least weighing in on the list.

I have a strong position about returning tourism at ICANN -- I think
there should be more thorough criteria for selection of returning
fellows. I think most money should go to maintain those who really work
in WGs or are really engaged in other ways. Not those who can't decide
what to join even being at the ICANN meeting for 3rd-4th time.

Ayden -- I would be happy to voice your concerns on the GNSO call in
addition to mine -- whichever they are (I think we might have kind of
similar views on the matter).

Cheers,

Tanya


On 04/10/17 17:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can
> schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common
> position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my
> strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>
> Ayden 
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James M. Bladel<<a href="mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com class=" ?="
> ">jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org%0A>>
> Cc:
>
>     Councilors ?
>
>      
>
>     Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN
>     travel support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was
>     sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>
>
>     I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming
>     meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly
>     light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>
>      
>
>     Thank you,
>
>      
>
>     J.
>
>     ------------------
>
>     James Bladel
>
>     GNSO Chair
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From: *Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org>
>     *Date: *Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
>     *To: *"jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>     *Cc: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>     *Subject: *Community Resource Consultation
>
>      
>
>     Dear James,
>
>      
>
>     As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN
>     organization is beginning a consultation process on community
>     resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from
>     supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder
>     groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines. 
>
>      
>
>     A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire
>     is attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are
>     available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with
>     the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the GNSO
>     Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent to the
>     stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>
>      
>
>     Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look
>     forward to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs
>     through 17 November 2017.
>
>      
>
>     Best regards,
>
>      
>
>     Patrick
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     -- 
>
>     Patrick L. Jones
>
>     Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>
>     Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>
>      
>
>      
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/434da6b4/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Thu Oct  5 11:24:14 2017
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 09:24:14 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnLHeuQOavYsdJgg8biYno7_dyHRHaM_fx3HfO0keCrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThnLHeuQOavYsdJgg8biYno7_dyHRHaM_fx3HfO0keCrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4008341-47e9-7e78-57e5-3081f0e41e78@mpicc.de>

Rafik,

don't you think that a strong position of GNSO on this issue would be
good, even if we briefly raise our concerns on the call? This will at
least add the issue on the agenda for further discussion. I would favour
this approach, but may be am wrong.

Cheers,

Tanya


On 05/10/17 02:23, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Ayden,
>
> any reason to have the call this week? the consultation itself is
> running till 17th Nov and I don't think the council will take action
> than discussing if the topic is added to the agenda. skimming through
> the questions, they seem more relevant to how to groups like NCSG
> manages the travel support.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-05 1:23 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
>     We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we
>     can schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a
>     common position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your
>     thoughts my strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>
>     Ayden 
>
>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     From: James M. Bladel<jbladel at godaddy.com
>     <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com+class=>>
>     Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
>     Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>     To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>     Cc:
>
>         Councilors ?
>
>          
>
>         Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN
>         travel support.  You may have already seen a similar note that
>         was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>
>
>         I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming
>         meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly
>         light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>
>          
>
>         Thank you,
>
>          
>
>         J.
>
>         ------------------
>
>         James Bladel
>
>         GNSO Chair
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         *From: *Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org
>         <mailto:patrick.jones at icann.org>>
>         *Date: *Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
>         *To: *"jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com> "
>         <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
>         *Cc: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
>         <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
>         *Subject: *Community Resource Consultation
>
>          
>
>         Dear James,
>
>          
>
>         As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN
>         organization is beginning a consultation process on community
>         resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from
>         supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder
>         groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines. 
>
>          
>
>         A copy of the consultation background document and
>         questionnaire is attached again for your reference. Carlos
>         Reyes and I are available between now and ICANN60 to discuss
>         the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome the
>         opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi.
>         Individual notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group
>         chairs within the GNSO.
>
>          
>
>         Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We
>         look forward to your input. This initial phase of the
>         consultation runs through 17 November 2017.
>
>          
>
>         Best regards,
>
>          
>
>         Patrick
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         -- 
>
>         Patrick L. Jones
>
>         Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>
>         Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>
>          
>
>          
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/3c59723a/attachment.htm>

From matthew at intpolicy.com  Thu Oct  5 14:40:43 2017
From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 13:40:43 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <01707b79-859d-2620-8a54-cef4ba0d4820@intpolicy.com>

+ 1 to your strong position.


On 05/10/2017 10:21, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>
> I agree with having a call or at least weighing in on the list.
>
> I have a strong position about returning tourism at ICANN -- I think 
> there should be more thorough criteria for selection of returning 
> fellows. I think most money should go to maintain those who really 
> work in WGs or are really engaged in other ways. Not those who can't 
> decide what to join even being at the ICANN meeting for 3rd-4th time.
>
> Ayden -- I would be happy to voice your concerns on the GNSO call in 
> addition to mine -- whichever they are (I think we might have kind of 
> similar views on the matter).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
>
> On 04/10/17 17:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>> We need to discuss this ? and?before the Council call. Perhaps we can 
>> schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common 
>> position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my 
>> strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: James M. Bladel<<a href="mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com class=" ?=" 
>> ">jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
>> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org 
>> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org%0A>>
>> Cc:
>>
>>     Councilors ?
>>
>>     Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN
>>     travel support.? You may have already seen a similar note that
>>     was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>>
>>
>>     I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming
>>     meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly
>>     light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>>
>>     Thank you,
>>
>>     J.
>>
>>     ------------------
>>
>>     James Bladel
>>
>>     GNSO Chair
>>
>>     *From: *Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org>
>>     *Date: *Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
>>     *To: *"jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>     *Cc: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>     *Subject: *Community Resource Consultation
>>
>>     Dear James,
>>
>>     As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN
>>     organization is beginning a consultation process on community
>>     resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from
>>     supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder
>>     groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines.
>>
>>     A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire
>>     is attached again for your reference.?Carlos Reyes?and I are
>>     available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation
>>     with the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the
>>     GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent
>>     to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>>
>>     Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look
>>     forward to your input.?This initial phase of the consultation
>>     runs through 17 November 2017.
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>
>>     Patrick
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     Patrick L. Jones
>>
>>     Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>>
>>     Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/d5397f06/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Oct  5 14:58:57 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:58:57 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <5dElj96h6-RJ__wlRg7L_G4jK49ANKPqU-ZN4u55HhlRLEUuK2bKTZZ-K_v6aXLaeayf7LE6DxFpTprmLFuW8ejqPCTCI-sX8Tp13Nve-9s=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Tanya,

Yes, on the point you raised, we are aligned in our thinking. I think there needs to be a radical scaling back of certain programmes, with resources re-allocated to supporting those involved in activities which support the work that the community does.

However, I also think there should be an element of need assessment used in the allocation of support. It seems bizarre to me that ICANN would fund the participation of certain stakeholders (primarily but not exclusively from the private sector) who otherwise have the capacity to be here -- and would be at the table anyway.

Finally, I think it is worth reminding ICANN that economy-class travel is a chore, not a privilege, and requiring people to take the lowest cost flight of the day at the most inconvenient time is not great. Where travel is over long distances and involves multiple connections, spending an extra $50-100 a leg to get a ticket in a bucket that can be upgraded with miles would, I think, alleviate some of the discomfort on 2am departures.

But these are just my views, I'm not sure if we have agreement on all of them.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> Local Time: 5 October 2017 9:21 AM
> UTC Time: 5 October 2017 08:21
> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> I agree with having a call or at least weighing in on the list.
>
> I have a strong position about returning tourism at ICANN -- I think there should be more thorough criteria for selection of returning fellows. I think most money should go to maintain those who really work in WGs or are really engaged in other ways. Not those who can't decide what to join even being at the ICANN meeting for 3rd-4th time.
>
> Ayden -- I would be happy to voice your concerns on the GNSO call in addition to mine -- whichever they are (I think we might have kind of similar views on the matter).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 04/10/17 17:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
>> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: James M. Bladel<<a href=["mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com class="](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.comclass=) ?=" ">jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
>> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>> To: GNSO Council List <[council at gnso.icann.org](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org%0A)>
>> Cc:
>>
>>> Councilors ?
>>>
>>> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>>>
>>> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> James Bladel
>>>
>>> GNSO Chair
>>>
>>> From: Patrick Jones [<patrick.jones at icann.org>](mailto:patrick.jones at icann.org)
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
>>> To: ["jbladel at godaddy.com "](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com) [<jbladel at godaddy.com>](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com)
>>> Cc: Marika Konings [<marika.konings at icann.org>](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org)
>>> Subject: Community Resource Consultation
>>>
>>> Dear James,
>>>
>>> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines.
>>>
>>> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>>>
>>> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17 November 2017.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Patrick L. Jones
>>>
>>> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/49ea5570/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Thu Oct  5 16:01:57 2017
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:01:57 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <5dElj96h6-RJ__wlRg7L_G4jK49ANKPqU-ZN4u55HhlRLEUuK2bKTZZ-K_v6aXLaeayf7LE6DxFpTprmLFuW8ejqPCTCI-sX8Tp13Nve-9s=@ferdeline.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>
 <5dElj96h6-RJ__wlRg7L_G4jK49ANKPqU-ZN4u55HhlRLEUuK2bKTZZ-K_v6aXLaeayf7LE6DxFpTprmLFuW8ejqPCTCI-sX8Tp13Nve-9s=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <7CFAB8FA-7A59-473D-B922-58DE03F25C54@gmail.com>

As i work with FCM for my itinerary to Abu Dhabi, they can't get me on a flight to Abu Dhabi, instead, i am landing in Dubai at 3am, then i have to use a (complementary) cab (journey of 1:30) to Abudhabi.

Worse thing, FCM asks me to CALL the driver when i am landing so he can drive me to Abu Dhabi.

The least i have requested is for the driver to have a sign with my name on Arrivals (because i cannot call while on transit) but they are asking me to CALL him coz that's the best they can suggest.

I am like, really?

-----------------
Ars?ne Tungali,
about.me/ArseneTungali
+243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tanya,
> 
> Yes, on the point you raised, we are aligned in our thinking. I think there needs to be a radical scaling back of certain programmes, with resources re-allocated to supporting those involved in activities which support the work that the community does.
> 
> However, I also think there should be an element of need assessment used in the allocation of support. It seems bizarre to me that ICANN would fund the participation of certain stakeholders (primarily but not exclusively from the private sector) who otherwise have the capacity to be here -- and would be at the table anyway.
> 
> Finally, I think it is worth reminding ICANN that economy-class travel is a chore, not a privilege, and requiring people to take the lowest cost flight of the day at the most inconvenient time is not great. Where travel is over long distances and involves multiple connections, spending an extra $50-100 a leg to get a ticket in a bucket that can be upgraded with miles would, I think, alleviate some of the discomfort on 2am departures. 
> 
> But these are just my views, I'm not sure if we have agreement on all of them.
> 
> Best wishes, Ayden 
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>> Local Time: 5 October 2017 9:21 AM
>> UTC Time: 5 October 2017 08:21
>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>> 
>> 
>> I agree with having a call or at least weighing in on the list.
>> 
>> I have a strong position about returning tourism at ICANN -- I think there should be more thorough criteria for selection of returning fellows. I think most money should go to maintain those who really work in WGs or are really engaged in other ways. Not those who can't decide what to join even being at the ICANN meeting for 3rd-4th time. 
>> 
>> Ayden -- I would be happy to voice your concerns on the GNSO call in addition to mine -- whichever they are (I think we might have kind of similar views on the matter).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Tanya 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 04/10/17 17:23, Ayden F?rdeline       wrote:
>>> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Ayden 
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: James M. Bladel<<a href="mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com class=" ?=" ">jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
>>> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> Cc: 
>>> 
>>>> Councilors ?
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is               fairly light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> J.
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------
>>>> 
>>>> James Bladel
>>>> 
>>>> GNSO Chair 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37 
>>>> To: "jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Community Resource Consultation
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Dear James,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines. 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17 November 2017.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Patrick
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 
>>>> Patrick L. Jones
>>>> 
>>>> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>>>> 
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/cb3d2774/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Thu Oct  5 16:04:44 2017
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:04:44 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <a4008341-47e9-7e78-57e5-3081f0e41e78@mpicc.de>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThnLHeuQOavYsdJgg8biYno7_dyHRHaM_fx3HfO0keCrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a4008341-47e9-7e78-57e5-3081f0e41e78@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <0DEE7AF8-A2C7-4F4F-980A-385AA448C0C7@gmail.com>

Also, how do we ensure that besides our own positions on this, we also consult with the membership to know what is their experience/concern so we can convey them?

Just asking...
-----------------
Ars?ne Tungali,
about.me/ArseneTungali
+243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
> 
> Rafik,
> 
> don't you think that a strong position of GNSO on this issue would be good, even if we briefly raise our concerns on the call? This will at least add the issue on the agenda for further discussion. I would favour this approach, but may be am wrong. 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tanya 
> 
>> On 05/10/17 02:23, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Ayden,
>> 
>> any reason to have the call this week? the consultation itself is running till 17th Nov and I don't think the council will take action than discussing if the topic is added to the agenda. skimming through the questions, they seem more relevant to how to groups like NCSG manages the travel support.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2017-10-05 1:23 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Ayden 
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
>>> From: James M. Bladel<jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
>>> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>> Cc: 
>>> Councilors ?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel support.  You may have already seen a                           similar note that was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> J.
>>> 
>>> ------------------
>>> 
>>> James Bladel
>>> 
>>> GNSO Chair
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org>
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at                             16:37 
>>> To: "jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Community Resource Consultation
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Dear James,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17 November 2017.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Patrick
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Patrick L. Jones
>>> 
>>> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>>> 
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/fc70d3e9/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Oct  5 16:17:02 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:17:02 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <7CFAB8FA-7A59-473D-B922-58DE03F25C54@gmail.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>
 <5dElj96h6-RJ__wlRg7L_G4jK49ANKPqU-ZN4u55HhlRLEUuK2bKTZZ-K_v6aXLaeayf7LE6DxFpTprmLFuW8ejqPCTCI-sX8Tp13Nve-9s=@ferdeline.com>
 <7CFAB8FA-7A59-473D-B922-58DE03F25C54@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <JTt-lzoswAGWtStoBXzHQz6q6A_K52oFW9ICy2TRKDh1-rn6aCyPKWsRBnEImS9iMQZoxbdwSIh0M8uASwTpda9p8kx9Waai06E3Oq45XoE=@ferdeline.com>

Sorry to hear that Ars?ne,

If we have this discussion on the PC call next week, we will probably be tight on time, so I think it would be best to keep our conversation quite high level. I suggest we discuss how funds can be most appropriately allocated to maximise volunteer retention and to increase our community's involvement in our most substantive activities.

Warm regards, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> Local Time: 5 October 2017 2:01 PM
> UTC Time: 5 October 2017 13:01
> From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> As i work with FCM for my itinerary to Abu Dhabi, they can't get me on a flight to Abu Dhabi, instead, i am landing in Dubai at 3am, then i have to use a (complementary) cab (journey of 1:30) to Abudhabi.
>
> Worse thing, FCM asks me to CALL the driver when i am landing so he can drive me to Abu Dhabi.
>
> The least i have requested is for the driver to have a sign with my name on Arrivals (because i cannot call while on transit) but they are asking me to CALL him coz that's the best they can suggest.
>
> I am like, really?
>
> -----------------
> Ars?ne Tungali,
> about.me/ArseneTungali
> +243 993810967
> GPG: 523644A0
> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
>
> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
>
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tanya,
>>
>> Yes, on the point you raised, we are aligned in our thinking. I think there needs to be a radical scaling back of certain programmes, with resources re-allocated to supporting those involved in activities which support the work that the community does.
>>
>> However, I also think there should be an element of need assessment used in the allocation of support. It seems bizarre to me that ICANN would fund the participation of certain stakeholders (primarily but not exclusively from the private sector) who otherwise have the capacity to be here -- and would be at the table anyway.
>>
>> Finally, I think it is worth reminding ICANN that economy-class travel is a chore, not a privilege, and requiring people to take the lowest cost flight of the day at the most inconvenient time is not great. Where travel is over long distances and involves multiple connections, spending an extra $50-100 a leg to get a ticket in a bucket that can be upgraded with miles would, I think, alleviate some of the discomfort on 2am departures.
>>
>> But these are just my views, I'm not sure if we have agreement on all of them.
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>>> Local Time: 5 October 2017 9:21 AM
>>> UTC Time: 5 October 2017 08:21
>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> I agree with having a call or at least weighing in on the list.
>>>
>>> I have a strong position about returning tourism at ICANN -- I think there should be more thorough criteria for selection of returning fellows. I think most money should go to maintain those who really work in WGs or are really engaged in other ways. Not those who can't decide what to join even being at the ICANN meeting for 3rd-4th time.
>>>
>>> Ayden -- I would be happy to voice your concerns on the GNSO call in addition to mine -- whichever they are (I think we might have kind of similar views on the matter).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On 04/10/17 17:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>
>>>> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: James M. Bladel<<a href=["mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com class="](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.comclass=) ?=" ">jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
>>>> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>>>> To: GNSO Council List <[council at gnso.icann.org](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org%0A)>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>>>> Councilors ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> James Bladel
>>>>>
>>>>> GNSO Chair
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Patrick Jones [<patrick.jones at icann.org>](mailto:patrick.jones at icann.org)
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
>>>>> To: ["jbladel at godaddy.com "](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com) [<jbladel at godaddy.com>](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com)
>>>>> Cc: Marika Konings [<marika.konings at icann.org>](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org)
>>>>> Subject: Community Resource Consultation
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear James,
>>>>>
>>>>> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17 November 2017.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick L. Jones
>>>>>
>>>>> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171005/a54d737d/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 07:35:09 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:35:09 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <5dElj96h6-RJ__wlRg7L_G4jK49ANKPqU-ZN4u55HhlRLEUuK2bKTZZ-K_v6aXLaeayf7LE6DxFpTprmLFuW8ejqPCTCI-sX8Tp13Nve-9s=@ferdeline.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>
 <5dElj96h6-RJ__wlRg7L_G4jK49ANKPqU-ZN4u55HhlRLEUuK2bKTZZ-K_v6aXLaeayf7LE6DxFpTprmLFuW8ejqPCTCI-sX8Tp13Nve-9s=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=GjzdNmvOz+SJoNoMetw5yowP1hb1HjTeXLkx86cn0ag@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I assume we will see more positions and perspectives from other groups in
next council call (As it will be scheduled under AoB). We will be able to
raise at the next NCSG Policy call with NCSG members. if we get some
guidance there, we will be able to share some initial position from NCSG,
if not we will share our personal thoughts for now.
As policy committee, we can start working on some draft responses to the
questionnaire to elicit comments from our membership when we share it in
the list.
anyone want to volunteer to start the drafting?

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-05 20:58 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi Tanya,
>
> Yes, on the point you raised, we are aligned in our thinking. I think
> there needs to be a radical scaling back of certain programmes, with
> resources re-allocated to supporting those involved in activities which
> support the work that the community does.
>
> However, I also think there should be an element of need assessment used
> in the allocation of support. It seems bizarre to me that ICANN would fund
> the participation of certain stakeholders (primarily but not exclusively
> from the private sector) who otherwise have the capacity to be here -- and
> would be at the table anyway.
>
> Finally, I think it is worth reminding ICANN that economy-class travel is
> a chore, not a privilege, and requiring people to take the lowest cost
> flight of the day at the most inconvenient time is not great. Where travel
> is over long distances and involves multiple connections, spending an extra
> $50-100 a leg to get a ticket in a bucket that can be upgraded with miles
> would, I think, alleviate some of the discomfort on 2am departures.
>
> But these are just my views, I'm not sure if we have agreement on all of
> them.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> Local Time: 5 October 2017 9:21 AM
> UTC Time: 5 October 2017 08:21
> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
>
> I agree with having a call or at least weighing in on the list.
>
> I have a strong position about returning tourism at ICANN -- I think there
> should be more thorough criteria for selection of returning fellows. I
> think most money should go to maintain those who really work in WGs or are
> really engaged in other ways. Not those who can't decide what to join even
> being at the ICANN meeting for 3rd-4th time.
>
> Ayden -- I would be happy to voice your concerns on the GNSO call in
> addition to mine -- whichever they are (I think we might have kind of
> similar views on the matter).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 04/10/17 17:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can
> schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common
> position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my
> strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>
> Ayden
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James M. Bladel<<a href="mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com class="
> <jbladel at godaddy.comclass=> ?=" ">jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org%0A>>
> Cc:
>
> Councilors ?
>
>
>
> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel
> support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to
> SG/C leaders.
>
>
> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either
> AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu
> Dhabi.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> J.
>
> ------------------
>
> James Bladel
>
> GNSO Chair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org> <patrick.jones at icann.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
> *To: *"jbladel at godaddy.com " <jbladel at godaddy.com> <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Cc: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Community Resource Consultation
>
>
>
> Dear James,
>
>
>
> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN
> organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources.
> The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations,
> advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community
> Travel Support Guidelines.
>
>
>
> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is
> attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between
> now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome
> the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual
> notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>
>
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward
> to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17
> November 2017.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Patrick L. Jones
>
> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171006/391324e7/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Oct  8 00:22:14 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 17:22:14 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=GjzdNmvOz+SJoNoMetw5yowP1hb1HjTeXLkx86cn0ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E0C0F13D-917E-47FC-825B-58C99BF6F4FC@icann.org>
 <BDD80DEF-FD40-4141-8CA5-8DD4347DE71F@godaddy.com>
 <AdrAoSdktCrPiXgt5h7K60HG1J3g48GZC3-m_nxJYpBcblipwsHqYViOZxNHyJVQhLNTCYU_b54A-IQ9Xpe2Re6K-MDow8dWNhItlod8GE0=@ferdeline.com>
 <8aa3b4f5-a239-9462-e742-c1a3f25b982d@mpicc.de>
 <5dElj96h6-RJ__wlRg7L_G4jK49ANKPqU-ZN4u55HhlRLEUuK2bKTZZ-K_v6aXLaeayf7LE6DxFpTprmLFuW8ejqPCTCI-sX8Tp13Nve-9s=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=GjzdNmvOz+SJoNoMetw5yowP1hb1HjTeXLkx86cn0ag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4mh92nriG9zpL1t1tWnWAHKYUhMVMKPiQXbvgyItTBlUT3gDGQ_DPzvuOus6TKnKfEzhF7dJ0bmckIMCALFbb3DWVUtAvRyGYiXng8BCThY=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Rafik,

> As policy committee, we can start working on some draft responses to the questionnaire to elicit comments from our membership when we share it in the list.

My first reaction is, I see this as an operational policy. Certainly when it comes to our positions on DNS policies -- whose recommendations have been developed and refined by the ICANN community through the various Supporting Organisations and influenced by the Advisory Committees -- wide consultation is imperative, but I do not think this is an issue that lends itself to a productive, far-reaching conversation with the membership.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
> Local Time: 6 October 2017 5:35 AM
> UTC Time: 6 October 2017 04:35
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi,
>
> I assume we will see more positions and perspectives from other groups in next council call (As it will be scheduled under AoB). We will be able to raise at the next NCSG Policy call with NCSG members. if we get some guidance there, we will be able to share some initial position from NCSG, if not we will share our personal thoughts for now.
> As policy committee, we can start working on some draft responses to the questionnaire to elicit comments from our membership when we share it in the list.
> anyone want to volunteer to start the drafting?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-05 20:58 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi Tanya,
>>
>> Yes, on the point you raised, we are aligned in our thinking. I think there needs to be a radical scaling back of certain programmes, with resources re-allocated to supporting those involved in activities which support the work that the community does.
>>
>> However, I also think there should be an element of need assessment used in the allocation of support. It seems bizarre to me that ICANN would fund the participation of certain stakeholders (primarily but not exclusively from the private sector) who otherwise have the capacity to be here -- and would be at the table anyway.
>>
>> Finally, I think it is worth reminding ICANN that economy-class travel is a chore, not a privilege, and requiring people to take the lowest cost flight of the day at the most inconvenient time is not great. Where travel is over long distances and involves multiple connections, spending an extra $50-100 a leg to get a ticket in a bucket that can be upgraded with miles would, I think, alleviate some of the discomfort on 2am departures.
>>
>> But these are just my views, I'm not sure if we have agreement on all of them.
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>>> Local Time: 5 October 2017 9:21 AM
>>> UTC Time: 5 October 2017 08:21
>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> I agree with having a call or at least weighing in on the list.
>>>
>>> I have a strong position about returning tourism at ICANN -- I think there should be more thorough criteria for selection of returning fellows. I think most money should go to maintain those who really work in WGs or are really engaged in other ways. Not those who can't decide what to join even being at the ICANN meeting for 3rd-4th time.
>>>
>>> Ayden -- I would be happy to voice your concerns on the GNSO call in addition to mine -- whichever they are (I think we might have kind of similar views on the matter).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On 04/10/17 17:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>
>>>> We need to discuss this ? and before the Council call. Perhaps we can schedule a call for later this week. I do not think we have a common position just yet and I hope to be able to feed into your thoughts my strong views on this issue. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: James M. Bladel<<a href=["mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com class="](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.comclass=) ?=" ">jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>> Date: On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm
>>>> Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: Community Resource Consultation
>>>> To: GNSO Council List <[council at gnso.icann.org](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org%0A)>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>>>> Councilors ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see below for a note from Patrick Jones regarding ICANN travel support.  You may have already seen a similar note that was sent earlier to SG/C leaders.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that we discuss this during one of our upcoming meetings, either AOB on 12 OCT (our current agenda is fairly light), or our meeting in Abu Dhabi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> James Bladel
>>>>>
>>>>> GNSO Chair
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Patrick Jones [<patrick.jones at icann.org>](mailto:patrick.jones at icann.org)
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 16:37
>>>>> To: ["jbladel at godaddy.com "](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com) [<jbladel at godaddy.com>](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com)
>>>>> Cc: Marika Konings [<marika.konings at icann.org>](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org)
>>>>> Subject: Community Resource Consultation
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear James,
>>>>>
>>>>> As David Olive and Sally Costerton stated last week, the ICANN organization is beginning a consultation process on community resources. The aim of this effort is to solicit input from supporting organizations, advisory committees and stakeholder groups to update the ICANN Community Travel Support Guidelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> A copy of the consultation background document and questionnaire is attached again for your reference. Carlos Reyes and I are available between now and ICANN60 to discuss the consultation with the GNSO. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with the GNSO Council in Abu Dhabi. Individual notes are also being sent to the stakeholder group chairs within the GNSO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. We look forward to your input. This initial phase of the consultation runs through 17 November 2017.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick L. Jones
>>>>>
>>>>> Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171007/1db822f2/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Oct  8 17:07:44 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 10:07:44 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
Message-ID: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.

Best, Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171008/1f9f935d/attachment.htm>

From matthew at intpolicy.com  Sun Oct  8 17:59:25 2017
From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears)
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:59:25 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <d1a53be1-56d5-6d63-4195-edf86eab14df@intpolicy.com>

Hi Ayden

Would you mind attaching the correspondence.

Thanks.

Matthew


On 08/10/2017 15:07, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent 
> correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it 
> here. 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing> 
> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a 
> first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>
> Best, Ayden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171008/292819ce/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Oct  8 18:33:44 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:33:44 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <d1a53be1-56d5-6d63-4195-edf86eab14df@intpolicy.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <d1a53be1-56d5-6d63-4195-edf86eab14df@intpolicy.com>
Message-ID: <sPYqtaFblAjI11zxkG2WFztZkx4mRwe6gGV4rDDI-mb91LWjCWV6ZB1BuTF7yRzMBChB5DgRTcGzzz1sBuLHPyE5fMJb5dYLOxqM_t5k4JU=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Matthew,

Please find attached the two letters.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 8 October 2017 3:59 PM
> UTC Time: 8 October 2017 14:59
> From: matthew at intpolicy.com
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> Hi Ayden
>
> Would you mind attaching the correspondence.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 08/10/2017 15:07, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>
>> Best, Ayden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171008/08e7d231/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mack-to-crocker-marby-31aug17-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171008/08e7d231/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shatan-to-swinehart-atallah-02oct17-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 734242 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171008/08e7d231/attachment-0001.pdf>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 10 04:39:58 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:39:58 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft NCSG Policy call agenda
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=avo0YPUGoLo4976GGW9+3jGCni==in8uO-_+xSKUMpA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Please find the draft agenda for NCSG Policy call, it should be "lighter"
call than usual with only topics for discussion and no motion to vote on.

I. Roll call/Introduction
II. GNSO Council Call Preparation

   - Council Agenda :
   https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-12oct17-en.htm
   - no motion tabled for this call

III. Policy Update
- Planning public comments responses:  https://www.icann.org/public-
comments#open-public

   - new public comment: Draft PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and
   Budgets (deadline 26th Nov)

- Policy topics:
  * Update from working groups, review teams
     - new gTLD subsequent procedures: WT5 (geonames), Closed Generics
  * GDPR (Webinar, cross-community session), Consumer Safeguards
(NCSG-Board meeting)

IV. AOB
   *
thinking if we should add item under AoB for Community Travel support
consultation

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171010/09015179/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 10 07:33:09 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:33:09 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

Thanks for the draft,
it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the
process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems
1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data
protection conference (that is already passed)

for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while
we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use
case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that
doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add
more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not
just responding to BC and IPC requests.

I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put
the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get
this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the
discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community
session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi,
>
> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence
> received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it here.
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>
> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first
> draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>
> Best, Ayden
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171010/e4a75cb0/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Oct 10 21:44:12 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:44:12 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Rafik,

Thank you very much for your comments.

It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!

I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.

The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?

Best wishes,

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks for the draft,
> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>
> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>
> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>
>> Best, Ayden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171010/24590f83/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Oct 10 22:28:25 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:28:25 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>

Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thank you very much for your comments.
>
> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>
> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>
> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for the draft,
>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>
>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>
>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>
>>> Best, Ayden
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171010/772547eb/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Oct 13 11:25:18 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:25:18 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
Message-ID: <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
for the council ASAP.

Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.

If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From pileleji at ymca.gm  Fri Oct 13 11:32:14 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:32:14 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
References: <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>

Concurred +1

On 13 October 2017 at 09:25, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
> for the council ASAP.
>
> Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
>
> If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
> they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
> be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/8a37e21b/attachment.htm>

From matthew at intpolicy.com  Fri Oct 13 11:56:31 2017
From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:56:31 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa43f8d1-8a9c-4478-2f3b-e7a54ca7559d@intpolicy.com>

Absolutely!!


On 13/10/2017 09:32, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
> Concurred +1
>
> On 13 October 2017 at 09:25, Tapani Tarvainen 
> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
>     for the council ASAP.
>
>     Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
>
>     If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
>     they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
>     be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
>
>     --
>     Tapani Tarvainen
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> /www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
>
> *
> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 


Matthew Shears
matthew at intpolicy.com
+447712472987
Skype:mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/8373318c/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Oct 13 14:05:12 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:05:12 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the
> helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward,
> please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes
> you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thank you very much for your comments.
>
> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps
> even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google
> Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>
> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on
> this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect.
> That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have
> been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with
> this regulation.
>
> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help
> engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is
> an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How
> would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this
> desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks for the draft,
> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the
> process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems
> 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data
> protection conference (that is already passed)
>
> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while
> we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use
> case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that
> doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add
> more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not
> just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>
> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I
> put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get
> this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the
> discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community
> session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence
>> received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it here.
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>
>> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first
>> draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>
>> Best, Ayden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/4e9adb42/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Fri Oct 13 14:29:02 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:29:02 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <aa43f8d1-8a9c-4478-2f3b-e7a54ca7559d@intpolicy.com>
References: <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa43f8d1-8a9c-4478-2f3b-e7a54ca7559d@intpolicy.com>
Message-ID: <942023A1-70BD-4620-8B11-D6D803AACDF7@gmail.com>

If Rafik confirms, go with the wind!!

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 5:56 AM, Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com> wrote:
> 
> Absolutely!!
> 
> On 13/10/2017 09:32, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
>> Concurred +1
>> 
>> On 13 October 2017 at 09:25, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
>> for the council ASAP.
>> 
>> Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
>> 
>> If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
>> they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
>> be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
>> 
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Matthew Shears
> matthew at intpolicy.com <mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com>
> +447712472987
> Skype:mshears <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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/943fda54/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Oct 13 15:28:50 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:28:50 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <942023A1-70BD-4620-8B11-D6D803AACDF7@gmail.com>
References: <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa43f8d1-8a9c-4478-2f3b-e7a54ca7559d@intpolicy.com>
 <942023A1-70BD-4620-8B11-D6D803AACDF7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Qm2P2d43GZtF9engfkdzt8ZC-gzNmvdpEVmRdrRT2bKYeZMG9FH0ae37QuUD5-kGzYyaIbrrvLJIwuTGtbx4MF3ii0wF4dZTzvDhKWvpUiE=@ferdeline.com>

+1 to putting forward Rafik's name.

?Ayden

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:29 pm, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> If Rafik confirms, go with the wind!!
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 5:56 AM, Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com> wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely!!
>>
>> On 13/10/2017 09:32, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
>>
>>> Concurred +1
>>>
>>> On 13 October 2017 at 09:25, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
>>>> for the council ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
>>>>
>>>> If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
>>>> they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
>>>> be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>> Coordinator
>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>> [www.ymca.gm](http://www.ymca.gm/)
>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>> [www.waigf.org](http://www.waigf.org/)
>>> [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm/)
>>> [www.npoc.org](http://www.npoc.org/)
>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>> [www.diplointernetgovernance.org](http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> matthew at intpolicy.com
>> +447712472987
>> [Skype:mshears](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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/019abf94/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Oct 13 19:56:17 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:56:17 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fw=3A_=5BCcwg-auctionproceeds=5D_FW=3A_=5BExt?=
 =?utf-8?q?=5D__ICANN_News_Alert_--_ICANN_Reserve_Fund_=E2=80=93_Public_Co?=
 =?utf-8?q?mment_on_Rationale_and_Target_Level?=
In-Reply-To: <D0D28642-EAA7-49D3-80AE-7257F026DA3B@icann.org>
References: <0.0.8.2D1.1D343F7E53E72CC.0@drone048.ral.icpbounce.com>
 <D0D28642-EAA7-49D3-80AE-7257F026DA3B@icann.org>
Message-ID: <KrcNsrt-Ip6Hua46UavwioF2XB6AWL88y_6VaYGMJ3GgzC6dA6IpdnPaEYQEBMKsaeN-peX2PK4yn14m67j-pgQImpxbRDQS7s-yh76fdQo=@ferdeline.com>

I suppose we should look to comment on this...

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Reserve Fund ? Public Comment on Rationale and Target Level
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 1:18 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 12:18
> From: marika.konings at icann.org
> To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>
> FYI ? for those of you interested in this topic.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply at external.icann.org>
> Reply-To: "no-reply at external.icann.org" <no-reply at external.icann.org>
> Date: Friday, October 13, 2017 at 01:52
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Reserve Fund ? Public Comment on Rationale and Target Level
>
> [CANN][icann.org](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=oyzb8vtKSqpJJuzRqh07HhsRq5IKyL8QgEgpupC44VQ&e=)
>
> News Alert
>
> [https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2017-10-12-en[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D3-2D2017-2D10-2D12-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=cXq7qMcburGIEnwdlcS7Insam-4BZeC8afiHYnwUqV4&e=)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ICANN Reserve Fund ? Public Comment on Rationale and Target Level
>
> 12 October 2017
>
> Open Date:
>
> 12 October 2017
>
> Close Date:
>
> 30 November 2017
>
> Originating Organization:
>
> ICANN Finance
>
> Categories/Tags:
>
> - Accountability/Transparency
>
> - Strategy
>
> - Operations/Finance
>
> Brief Overview:
>
> ICANN's Reserve Fund was established in 2007 with a target level of a minimum of 12 months of Operating expenses. Since then, the ICANN Organization and its risk profile have significantly evolved. An updated rationale for the existence of the Reserve Fund and for its target level is offered for public comment.
>
> Link:
>
> [https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-2017-10-12-en[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_reserve-2Dfund-2D2017-2D10-2D12-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=II4yxmJA_hJmEE3j_RIw8vL4RhR_6bofoQFl_P64IFQ&e=)
>
> This message was sent to marika.konings at icann.org from no-reply at external.icann.org
>
> ICANN News Alert
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>
> [icontact.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icontact.com_signup-2Dtrial-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Dpoweredby-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooterlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DiC-2520Footer-26afid-3D144186&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=cALLvPEAoT6JDJRVIgzRjgciV0PkLcXcuINMUE6zR-c&e=)
>
> [Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.icontact.com_icp_mmail-2Dmprofile.pl-3Fr-3D11415898-26l-3D6333-26s-3DKUM2-26m-3D1010729-26c-3D165637&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=xr8hCzWlA9lhA3hynXFC0uP4zMuDsmrrBI25mgLZoAI&e=)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/1d6e00cd/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Oct 13 21:14:24 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:14:24 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>

I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my 
google password) and made quite a few changes.? I like the idea, but I 
think we should be a bit more specific.? In terms of informing the 
DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in 
Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners 
meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there 
is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for 
two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.

Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.? I will confess, I am 
losing my patience with this lot.? They spend gobs of money gadding 
around trying to nullify end user rights.? Totally ignore us. Ought to 
be ashamed of themselves.

Stephanie


On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> hi,
>
> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
>     Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account
>     the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours;
>     moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if
>     you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>
>     Ayden
>
>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>     correspondence
>>     Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>     UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>     From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>>     Hi Rafik,
>>
>>     Thank you very much for your comments.
>>
>>     It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and
>>     perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits
>>     directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help
>>     write it and shape its contents!
>>
>>     I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to
>>     ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR
>>     comes into effect. That way we can document for the data
>>     protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in
>>     excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>>
>>     The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need
>>     to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC
>>     representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to
>>     have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do
>>     we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu
>>     Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>
>>     Best wishes,
>>
>>     Ayden
>>
>>
>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>     correspondence
>>>     Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>     UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>     From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>     To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>
>>>     Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>>     Thanks for the draft,
>>>     it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and
>>>     influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the
>>>     last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce
>>>     not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that
>>>     is already passed)
>>>
>>>     for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language
>>>     there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it
>>>     seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from
>>>     previous comments you think that doesn't?include our
>>>     perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in
>>>     particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and
>>>     not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>
>>>     I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their
>>>     thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We
>>>     need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting
>>>     if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on
>>>     how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that
>>>     we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>
>>>         Hi,
>>>
>>>         I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent
>>>         correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can
>>>         read/edit it here.
>>>         <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>         I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but
>>>         this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please
>>>         provide alternative language.
>>>
>>>         Best, Ayden
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/ae284016/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Oct 13 21:59:29 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:59:29 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>

I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.

Ayden F?rdeline
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>
> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>
>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>>>>
>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>
>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/587a1cda/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Oct 14 00:27:13 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:27:13 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>

Hi all,

I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?

Many thanks, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>
>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>
>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/1c4be278/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Letter.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 41778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/1c4be278/attachment.pdf>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Oct 14 00:33:10 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:33:10 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>

It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.

cheers Steph


On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a 
> proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on 
> sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, 
> perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>
> Many thanks, Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC 
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, 
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong 
>> Kong this month, our?public silence is being manipulated and used to 
>> make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an 
>> integral?part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are 
>> not.?Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the 
>> narrative and get it all documented.
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin 
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my 
>>> google password) and made quite a few changes.? I like the idea, but 
>>> I think we should be a bit more specific.? In terms of informing the 
>>> DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in 
>>> Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners 
>>> meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that 
>>> there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been 
>>> briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.? I will confess, I 
>>> am losing my patience with this lot.? They spend gobs of money 
>>> gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.? Totally ignore 
>>> us.? Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>     Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account
>>>>     the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours;
>>>>     moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly
>>>>     if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>     Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>     correspondence
>>>>>     Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>     UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>     From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>>     It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday
>>>>>     and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome
>>>>>     edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list,
>>>>>     please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>
>>>>>     I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to
>>>>>     ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the
>>>>>     GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data
>>>>>     protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in
>>>>>     excess of six months of their need to comply with this
>>>>>     regulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we
>>>>>     need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and
>>>>>     their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one
>>>>>     which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go
>>>>>     about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express
>>>>>     this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with
>>>>>     them?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>>     correspondence
>>>>>>     Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>     UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>     From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>     To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>     it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and
>>>>>>     influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the
>>>>>>     last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in
>>>>>>     taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection
>>>>>>     conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language
>>>>>>     there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it
>>>>>>     seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from
>>>>>>     previous comments you think that doesn't?include our
>>>>>>     perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more,
>>>>>>     in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process
>>>>>>     and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their
>>>>>>     thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call.
>>>>>>     We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi
>>>>>>     meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and
>>>>>>     depending on how things go with the cross-community session.
>>>>>>     I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>     <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the
>>>>>>         recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC.
>>>>>>         You can read/edit it here.
>>>>>>         <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>         I know the language is provocative (intentionally so),
>>>>>>         but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please
>>>>>>         provide alternative language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Best, Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/1c4e23d2/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Oct 14 00:42:49 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:42:49 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>
> cheers Steph
>
> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>
>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>> To: Stephanie Perrin [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.
>>>
>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/528bce14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34680 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/528bce14/attachment.pdf>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Sat Oct 14 00:49:16 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:49:16 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkp2YYP2UQNq3AGfR+8Tsi50q4DtcDyOrqPuvLL0ANMHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>

I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official letter. 

I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat. 

Cheers,
Mart?n

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
> 
> Ayden 
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>> 
>> 
>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>> 
>> cheers Steph
>> 
>> 
>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>> 
>>> Many thanks, Ayden  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> 
>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented. 
>>>> 
>>>> Ayden F?rdeline 
>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Stephanie 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: 
>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ayden 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM 
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44 
>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> 
>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> 
>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents! 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them? 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best wishes, 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ayden  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- 
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence 
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM 
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33 
>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> 
>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft, 
>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed) 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best, 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>> Hi, 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it here. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________ 
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list 
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is> 
>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/2fae0968/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Oct 14 00:53:38 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:53:38 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <gUa6L6MSJt0zk7nkGncELSnv8U893Qj70uABfzp0mEZ50OYEZoB3TyW4mqO68slhTbhnchYPh5mw9knAdM0vH9V-7yBMIsJ_D7jVDOHEva0=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <281fb3bd-392b-d131-c9c0-9b8862fedfb4@mail.utoronto.ca>

Fair enough. Let's have a bit of a discussion on the pc, about how 
people feel.

Stephanie


On 2017-10-13 17:49, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more 
> mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like 
> going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we 
> shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are 
> waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include 
> as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not 
> recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process 
> happen, much less by ?by written official letter.
>
> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but 
> not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, 
> I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG 
> position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks 
> amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be 
> taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the 
>> letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC 
>>> correspondence
>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>> From:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is 
>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is><ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is 
>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>
>>> cheers Steph
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a 
>>>> proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon 
>>>> on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a 
>>>> name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC 
>>>>> correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>> From:icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>> To: Stephanie 
>>>>> Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong 
>>>>> Kong this month, our?public silence is being manipulated and used 
>>>>> to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are 
>>>>> an integral?part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when 
>>>>> we are not.?Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape 
>>>>> the narrative and get it all documented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin 
>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget 
>>>>>> my google password) and made quite a few changes.? I like the 
>>>>>> idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.? In terms of 
>>>>>> informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the 
>>>>>> IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the 
>>>>>> data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew 
>>>>>> from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they 
>>>>>> know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen 
>>>>>> that a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong. I will confess, 
>>>>>> I am losing my patience with this lot.? They spend gobs of money 
>>>>>> gadding around trying to nullify end user rights. Totally ignore 
>>>>>> us.? Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline<icann at ferdeline.com 
>>>>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into
>>>>>>>     account the helpful feedback that was received over the past
>>>>>>>     48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the
>>>>>>>     document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see
>>>>>>>     made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and
>>>>>>>>     IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>     Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>>>     UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>>>     From:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     It would be great if we could finalise this letter by
>>>>>>>>     Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much
>>>>>>>>     welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this
>>>>>>>>     list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter
>>>>>>>>     to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of
>>>>>>>>     the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for
>>>>>>>>     the data protection authorities that we have been informing
>>>>>>>>     ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with
>>>>>>>>     this regulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that
>>>>>>>>     we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs
>>>>>>>>     and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and
>>>>>>>>     one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we
>>>>>>>>     go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we
>>>>>>>>     express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our
>>>>>>>>     face-to-face with them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Ayden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and
>>>>>>>>>     IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>     Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>     UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>>>     From:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>     To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>>>     it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and
>>>>>>>>>     influence the process. as we discussed before here and on
>>>>>>>>>     the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in
>>>>>>>>>     taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection
>>>>>>>>>     conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the
>>>>>>>>>     language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC
>>>>>>>>>     letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I
>>>>>>>>>     understood from previous comments you think that
>>>>>>>>>     doesn't?include our perspective. I add few comments but I
>>>>>>>>>     think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in
>>>>>>>>>     general regarding the process and not just responding to
>>>>>>>>>     BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     I ask other PC members to review the letter and share
>>>>>>>>>     their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for
>>>>>>>>>     today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior
>>>>>>>>>     to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the
>>>>>>>>>     discussion there and depending on how things go with the
>>>>>>>>>     cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new
>>>>>>>>>     version by this Friday.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden
>>>>>>>>>     F?rdeline<icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the
>>>>>>>>>         recent correspondence received from the BC and the
>>>>>>>>>         IPC.You can read/edit it here.
>>>>>>>>>         <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>I
>>>>>>>>>         know the language is provocative (intentionally so),
>>>>>>>>>         but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove
>>>>>>>>>         please provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> <Proposed Letter - Chair 
>> Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/91b415c1/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Oct 14 00:55:47 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:55:47 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.

Warm wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official letter.
>
> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>
>>> cheers Steph
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/c3490b31/attachment.htm>

From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Sat Oct 14 00:57:56 2017
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:57:56 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <Qm2P2d43GZtF9engfkdzt8ZC-gzNmvdpEVmRdrRT2bKYeZMG9FH0ae37QuUD5-kGzYyaIbrrvLJIwuTGtbx4MF3ii0wF4dZTzvDhKWvpUiE=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa43f8d1-8a9c-4478-2f3b-e7a54ca7559d@intpolicy.com>
 <942023A1-70BD-4620-8B11-D6D803AACDF7@gmail.com>
 <Qm2P2d43GZtF9engfkdzt8ZC-gzNmvdpEVmRdrRT2bKYeZMG9FH0ae37QuUD5-kGzYyaIbrrvLJIwuTGtbx4MF3ii0wF4dZTzvDhKWvpUiE=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <266802285.1501028.1507931876177@mail.yahoo.com>

I also support Rafik for this position!?
JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?ColombiaCommunications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANNCluster Orinoco TIC memberMaster IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
Cel. +57 3017435600
Twitter:?@JmanuRojas





? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

    El viernes, 13 de octubre de 2017 7:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> escribi?:  
 
 +1 to putting forward Rafik's name.? 
?Ayden?   
 On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:29 pm, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: 
 If Rafik confirms, go with the wind!! 
  
 On Oct 13, 2017, at 5:56 AM, Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com> wrote: 
   
Absolutely!! 
 
 
 On 13/10/2017 09:32, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: 
  
 Concurred +1 
   
 On 13 October 2017 at 09:25, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote: 
 
Dear all, 
 
CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate 
for the council ASAP. 
 
Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik. 
 
If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then 
they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should 
be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi. 
 
 --
 Tapani Tarvainen
 ______________________________ _________________
 NCSG-PC mailing list
 NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
 https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ listinfo/ncsg-pc
  
  
 
 
-- 
     Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS 
Coordinator 
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio 
MDI Road Kanifing South 
P. O. Box 421 Banjul 
The Gambia, West Africa 
Tel: (220) 4370240 
Fax:(220) 4390793 
Cell:(220) 9912508 
Skype: pons_utd 
 www.ymca.gm
 http://jokkolabs.net/en/
 www.waigf.org
 www,insistglobal.com
 www.npoc.org
 http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
 www.diplointernetgovernance.org
 
 
 
  
       
  
 _______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171013/643657ae/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Sat Oct 14 01:09:44 2017
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 00:09:44 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <Qm2P2d43GZtF9engfkdzt8ZC-gzNmvdpEVmRdrRT2bKYeZMG9FH0ae37QuUD5-kGzYyaIbrrvLJIwuTGtbx4MF3ii0wF4dZTzvDhKWvpUiE=@ferdeline.com>
References: <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
 <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa43f8d1-8a9c-4478-2f3b-e7a54ca7559d@intpolicy.com>
 <942023A1-70BD-4620-8B11-D6D803AACDF7@gmail.com>
 <Qm2P2d43GZtF9engfkdzt8ZC-gzNmvdpEVmRdrRT2bKYeZMG9FH0ae37QuUD5-kGzYyaIbrrvLJIwuTGtbx4MF3ii0wF4dZTzvDhKWvpUiE=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <3c3e8fef-848f-0a90-e374-8ddc0d41b9e5@mpicc.de>

Fully support!

Cheers,
Tanya

On 13/10/17 14:28, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> +1 to putting forward Rafik's name. 
>
> ?Ayden 
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:29 pm, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> If Rafik confirms, go with the wind!!
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 5:56 AM, Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com
>>> <mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Absolutely!!
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/10/2017 09:32, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:
>>>> Concurred +1
>>>>
>>>> On 13 October 2017 at 09:25, Tapani Tarvainen
>>>> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>     CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
>>>>     for the council ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>     Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
>>>>
>>>>     If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
>>>>     they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it
>>>>     should
>>>>     be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
>>>>
>>>>     --
>>>>     Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>> Coordinator
>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>> /www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>> /www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>> <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> matthew at intpolicy.com
>>> +447712472987
>>> Skype:mshears
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/98aa5b7a/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Oct 14 02:56:40 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:56:40 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?Fw=3A_=5BCcwg-auctionproceeds=5D_FW=3A_=5BExt?=
	=?utf-8?q?=5D_ICANN_News_Alert_--_ICANN_Reserve_Fund_=E2=80=93_Pub?=
	=?utf-8?q?lic_Comment_on_Rationale_and_Target_Level?=
In-Reply-To: <KrcNsrt-Ip6Hua46UavwioF2XB6AWL88y_6VaYGMJ3GgzC6dA6IpdnPaEYQEBMKsaeN-peX2PK4yn14m67j-pgQImpxbRDQS7s-yh76fdQo=@ferdeline.com>
References: <0.0.8.2D1.1D343F7E53E72CC.0@drone048.ral.icpbounce.com>
 <D0D28642-EAA7-49D3-80AE-7257F026DA3B@icann.org>
 <KrcNsrt-Ip6Hua46UavwioF2XB6AWL88y_6VaYGMJ3GgzC6dA6IpdnPaEYQEBMKsaeN-peX2PK4yn14m67j-pgQImpxbRDQS7s-yh76fdQo=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=PWCru3sZwa94VMhAjZyjkVjxDJuk3NZS+ohNMY_k3_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

definitely yes, send a call for volunteers to get more people to help.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-14 1:56 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> I suppose we should look to comment on this...
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] FW: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN
> Reserve Fund ? Public Comment on Rationale and Target Level
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 1:18 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 12:18
> From: marika.konings at icann.org
> To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
>
>
> FYI ? for those of you interested in this topic.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *ICANN News Alert <no-reply at external.icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *"no-reply at external.icann.org" <no-reply at external.icann.org>
> *Date: *Friday, October 13, 2017 at 01:52
> *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Reserve Fund ? Public Comment
> on Rationale and Target Level
>
>
>
> [image: CANN][icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=oyzb8vtKSqpJJuzRqh07HhsRq5IKyL8QgEgpupC44VQ&e=>
> News Alert
>
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2017-10-12-en[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D3-2D2017-2D10-2D12-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=cXq7qMcburGIEnwdlcS7Insam-4BZeC8afiHYnwUqV4&e=>
> ------------------------------
>
> ICANN Reserve Fund ? Public Comment on Rationale and Target Level
>
> 12 October 2017
>
> *Open Date:*
>
> 12 October 2017
>
> *Close Date:*
>
> 30 November 2017
>
> *Originating Organization:*
>
> ICANN Finance
>
> *Categories/Tags:*
>
>    - Accountability/Transparency
>    - Strategy
>    - Operations/Finance
>
> *Brief Overview:*
>
> ICANN's Reserve Fund was established in 2007 with a target level of a
> minimum of 12 months of Operating expenses. Since then, the ICANN
> Organization and its risk profile have significantly evolved. An updated
> rationale for the existence of the Reserve Fund and for its target level is
> offered for public comment.
>
> *Link:*
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-2017-10-
> 12-en[icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_reserve-2Dfund-2D2017-2D10-2D12-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=II4yxmJA_hJmEE3j_RIw8vL4RhR_6bofoQFl_P64IFQ&e=>
>
> This message was sent to *marika.konings at icann.org
> <marika.konings at icann.org>* from *no-reply at external.icann.org
> <no-reply at external.icann.org>*
>
> ICANN News Alert
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>
> [icontact.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icontact.com_signup-2Dtrial-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Dpoweredby-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooterlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DiC-2520Footer-26afid-3D144186&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=cALLvPEAoT6JDJRVIgzRjgciV0PkLcXcuINMUE6zR-c&e=>
>
> *Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__app.icontact.com_icp_mmail-2Dmprofile.pl-3Fr-3D11415898-26l-3D6333-26s-3DKUM2-26m-3D1010729-26c-3D165637&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=usdU1OF33sNRAyS7HEiRLQhU84e0XTgClYx_0NpKP4g&s=xr8hCzWlA9lhA3hynXFC0uP4zMuDsmrrBI25mgLZoAI&e=>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/adc077e0/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Oct 14 02:59:51 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:59:51 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] DRAFT REPORT: Meeting Strategy: Incremental Changes for
	Community Review
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn41v=x6RAA1OfPtDkiNGeTrvM=awoJuhTXXGAixLV9mA@mail.gmail.com>

hi all,

this was discussed during the last council call and by our discussion in
NCSG call, it is something we should give our input.
it should be public soon. another item for us to respond to, with the
questionnaire . on community resource.

Best,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------




On 17 August 2017, ICANN.org hosted a call with community leaders and
representatives to discuss questions about the criteria for ICANN Meeting
venue selection, and potential updates to the current strategy for ICANN
Public Meetings, which was approved by the ICANN Board in 2014 (See:
https://community.icann.org/display/soaceinputfeedback/Event+Calendar.
Community leaders and representatives on the call included: At-Large
Advisory Committee (ALAC) and RALO Chairs, Commercial Stakeholder Group
(CSG), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Generic Names
Supporting Organization (GNSO), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG),
Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), Root
Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), and Security and Stability
Advisory Committee (SSAC), and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) .



This document summarizes the discussion, and provides a detailed report of
proposed incremental changes to the current meeting strategy
<https://meetings.icann.org/en/mswgrecommendations-icannfuturemeetingsstrategyfinalv119jun14.pdf>
*,* for the purposes of future consultation with the community.



Fundamental changes to the meeting strategy were also discussed, however
participants agreed to wait for a more comprehensive review of the current
meeting strategy with the community to examine those issues and make
informed recommendations for change.



*ICANN.org will present this paper to community leaders and representatives
on 13 October 2017 and solicit feedback from the group at a meeting on 2
November 2017 at 0800 am in Capital Suite 3 at the ICANN60 Annual General
Meeting in Abu Dhabi.* Following that discussion, community leaders and
representatives will determine next steps and whether the proposed
incremental changes outlined in this document should go out for
consultation with the ICANN community. ICANN.org will await further
guidance and direction from the community before amending the current
meeting strategy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/9f7374f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Meeting-Strategy-Incremental-Changes-FINAL_13Oct17.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 177108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/9f7374f3/attachment.docx>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Sat Oct 14 18:38:55 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:38:55 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <72eARbFxilxWEy1L3Hryq_l6xP4QQby4yk_Scj7cabkGWndzklwTL-5to8Tb2ANGwW0TgPjy38YI4WJN3vTt1RHDou4ykrdqabfwYE3rwYo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LAF7na-jzzCbDBW9gpCORe6Q5uexPKTC-Jj8=sfWg=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>

To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last paragraph:

1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.

2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model. 

3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.


Cheers,
Mart?n


> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
> 
> Warm wishes, Ayden 
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> 
>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official letter. 
>> 
>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>> 
>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>> 
>>> Ayden 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>> 
>>>> cheers Steph
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline 
>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Stephanie 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: 
>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ayden 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM 
>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44 
>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> 
>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> 
>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents! 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them? 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ayden  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- 
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence 
>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM 
>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33 
>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft, 
>>>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed) 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best, 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Rafik  
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it here. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________ 
>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list 
>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is> 
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/53cd119a/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Oct 14 19:20:56 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:20:56 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Martin,

Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design, being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last paragraph:
>
> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>
> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model.
>
> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>
>> Warm wishes, Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official letter.
>>>
>>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mart?n
>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/70fac9a8/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Oct 14 19:36:08 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:36:08 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Deadline in 2 days - Draft PTI and IANA FY19 Operating
	Plans and Budgets Questions
Message-ID: <IXKVifdJXrw0TXe1P6rkSm1Th4rwPTFYMVjG2Tf9HDxirXJG0R8kaIkoBgJl1ryOal5G1rajO3LwZBeaA1BJoFTv3cTmN1vXnMZbmMpZ_tI=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

The deadline to submit questions to the Finance department re: Draft PTI and IANA FY19 Operating Plans and Budgets is 16 October. If we have questions, we will need to submit them by this time for a response by 23 October. If we do not ask a question by this time, my understand is that we cannot raise the question as a complaint in our final comment (that is, if we find something objectionable in the PTI/IANA budget, we need to find it now, seek clarification by 16 October, and if we disagree with the response, we can then say so).

?Ayden

P.S. More info - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-iana-fy19-2017-10-09-en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/7721b830/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Sat Oct 14 20:39:05 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:39:05 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>

I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the ending were it says we would go to court.

This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if you may).

"As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel that once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing to lose from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of senior management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s continued, 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As we are sure you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to sue the Data Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."

Cheers,
Mart?n

> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design, being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
> 
> Best wishes, Ayden
> 
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> 
>> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last paragraph:
>> 
>> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>> 
>> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model. 
>> 
>> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>> 
>>> Warm wishes, Ayden 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official letter. 
>>>> 
>>>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat. 
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mart?n
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ayden 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline 
>>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Stephanie 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: 
>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM 
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44 
>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments. 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents! 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation. 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them? 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden  
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM 
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33 
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed) 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik  
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it here. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________ 
>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list 
>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/087a1d11/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Sat Oct 14 23:13:44 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 21:13:44 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <a1dff857-9438-ab7e-fa70-f4165acbfc27@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40vPrfOLVJnxaa7ZsaVirtg8YbPURoRd9iFciY9qrT-0oQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rafik,

I have no objection to the current text as its stance.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 14 October 2017 at 18:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two
> phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the
> ending were it says we would go to court.
>
> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary
> and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if
> you may).
>
> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want
> to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into
> compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it
> under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel that
> once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing to lose
> from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of senior
> management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will
> have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s continued,
> 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As we are sure
> you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to sue the Data
> Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately
> will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you
> taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly
> and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we
> do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go
> through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design,
> being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the
> multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we
> should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a
> resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the
> right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only
> to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last
> paragraph:
>
> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State
> agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea.
> As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using
> our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on
> ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is
> way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why
> Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still
> coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public
> campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be
> an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the
> model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to
> the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating
> our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to
> put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves
> is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>
> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put
> it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph
> hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the
> letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the
> issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite
> to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges
> you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will
> stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that
> NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder
> model.
>
> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that
> states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we
> should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a
> vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and
> hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think
> we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and
> sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN
> know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation,
> or *we will* avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we
> will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something
> I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do
> we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year
> ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>
> Warm wishes, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow
> and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public
> with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote
> agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the
> event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet,
> I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before
> the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written
> official letter.
>
> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in
> a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t
> recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder:
> ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we
> should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the
> threat.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter
> which includes the Chair's name.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
>
> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>
> cheers Steph
>
> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a
> proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on
> sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name,
> perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>
> Many thanks, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong
> this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the
> false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of
> ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these
> edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all
> documented.
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google
> password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we
> should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the
> DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris,
> I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong
> kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft
> statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we
> need to sharpen that a bit.
>
> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am
> losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around
> trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed
> of themselves.
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the
>> helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward,
>> please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes
>> you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>
>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps
>> even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google
>> Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>
>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on
>> this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect.
>> That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have
>> been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with
>> this regulation.
>>
>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help
>> engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is
>> an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How
>> would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this
>> desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for the draft,
>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the
>> process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems
>> 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data
>> protection conference (that is already passed)
>>
>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;)
>> while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the
>> use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that
>> doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add
>> more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not
>> just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>
>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I
>> put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get
>> this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the
>> discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community
>> session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent
>>> correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it
>>> here.
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>  I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a
>>> first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best, Ayden
>>>
>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_____________________
> __________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/6b80c9f3/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Oct 14 23:21:37 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 16:21:37 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>

Very nice edit.

Stephanie.


On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
> I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two 
> phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and 
> the ending were it says we would go to court.
> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel 
> necessary and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a 
> subtle hint if you may).
> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we 
> want to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come 
> into compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of 
> sweeping it under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the 
> process, and feel that once again certain stakeholders with everything 
> to gain and nothing to lose from the collection of end-user data are 
> getting the ear of senior management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, 
> we are afraid that we will have to?take all actions at our disposal 
> regarding?ICANN?s continued, 19-year streak of non-compliance with 
> data protection law. As we are sure you are aware, the new GDPR gives 
> individuals the right to sue the Data Protection Authorities for 
> failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately will impact in 
> the DNS use and ICANN itself."
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you 
>> taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc 
>> directly and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with 
>> it? I think we do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that 
>> we should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be 
>> heard. We are, by design, being excluded from the conversation on 
>> this issue, and a flaw in the multistakeholder model has become 
>> apparent (at least to me). I think we should avail ourselves of all 
>> legal avenues through which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies 
>> so to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. To 
>> box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only to a process 
>> flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC 
>>> correspondence
>>> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>>> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is 
>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is 
>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>
>>> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the 
>>> last paragraph:
>>>
>>> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State 
>>> agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very 
>>> bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC 
>>> and keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left 
>>> out. Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the 
>>> whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this 
>>> case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other 
>>> jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, 
>>> and as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state 
>>> claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG 
>>> action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, 
>>> let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to 
>>> the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group 
>>> coordinating our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data 
>>> protection agencies to put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside 
>>> the process we set for ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of 
>>> precedent.
>>>
>>> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency 
>>> to put it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, 
>>> the paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you 
>>> read the letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it 
>>> makes you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is 
>>> backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the 
>>> threat you loose all the communication bridges you build before in 
>>> the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop 
>>> thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read 
>>> that NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the 
>>> multistakeholder model.
>>>
>>> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph 
>>> that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be 
>>> heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the 
>>> ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose 
>>> the best tool.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mart?n
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on 
>>>> board and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do 
>>>> disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we 
>>>> have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is 
>>>> important we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious 
>>>> about being able to input into this conversation, or /we will/ 
>>>> avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will 
>>>> need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is 
>>>> something I have been thinking about for next year; what are the 
>>>> next steps, when do we launch, and what do we need? I think the 
>>>> time for diplomacy was a year ago (or longer), and now is the time 
>>>> for action.
>>>>
>>>> Warm wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC 
>>>>> correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is 
>>>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is 
>>>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more 
>>>>> mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, 
>>>>> like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I 
>>>>> think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I 
>>>>> understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder 
>>>>> model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that 
>>>>> as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual 
>>>>> exclusion of the process happen, much less by ?by written official 
>>>>> letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, 
>>>>> but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep 
>>>>> implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as 
>>>>> official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, 
>>>>> the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the 
>>>>> point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mart?n
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
>>>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the 
>>>>>> letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC 
>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>>>> From:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
>>>>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is 
>>>>>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is><ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is 
>>>>>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have 
>>>>>>>> attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach 
>>>>>>>> agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, 
>>>>>>>> should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to 
>>>>>>>> be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC 
>>>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>>>> From:icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>> To: Stephanie 
>>>>>>>>> Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in 
>>>>>>>>> Hong Kong this month, our?public silence is being manipulated 
>>>>>>>>> and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted 
>>>>>>>>> with and are an integral?part of ICANN's efforts to comply 
>>>>>>>>> with the GDPR, when we are not.?Thanks for these edits 
>>>>>>>>> Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all 
>>>>>>>>> documented.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin 
>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always 
>>>>>>>>>> forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.? I 
>>>>>>>>>> like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.? 
>>>>>>>>>> In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get 
>>>>>>>>>> people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has 
>>>>>>>>>> been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong 
>>>>>>>>>> (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft 
>>>>>>>>>> statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for 
>>>>>>>>>> two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.? I will 
>>>>>>>>>> confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.? They spend 
>>>>>>>>>> gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user 
>>>>>>>>>> rights.? Totally ignore us. Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>>> F?rdeline<icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into
>>>>>>>>>>>     account the helpful feedback that was received over the
>>>>>>>>>>>     past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit
>>>>>>>>>>>     the document directly if you have any changes you'd like
>>>>>>>>>>>     to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC
>>>>>>>>>>>>     and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>     UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>>>>>>>     From:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     It would be great if we could finalise this letter by
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very
>>>>>>>>>>>>     much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>     on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     I would also like to propose that we write a monthly
>>>>>>>>>>>>     letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when
>>>>>>>>>>>>     enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we
>>>>>>>>>>>>     can document for the data protection authorities that
>>>>>>>>>>>>     we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of
>>>>>>>>>>>>     their need to comply with this regulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today -
>>>>>>>>>>>>     that we need to help engineer a conversation between
>>>>>>>>>>>>     the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>     interesting one, and one which seemed to have support
>>>>>>>>>>>>     in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>     write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     From:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     it is important we make a point to voice our concerns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     and influence the process. as we discussed before here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     and I understood from previous comments you think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     doesn't?include our perspective. I add few comments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     but I think we can add more, in particular, our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     concerns in general regarding the process and not just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     I ask other PC members to review the letter and share
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     for today call. We need a deadline to get this done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     continue the discussion there and depending on how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     things go with the cross-community session. I propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     F?rdeline<icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         the recent correspondence received from the BC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         the IPC.You can read/edit it here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         know the language is provocative (intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         so), but this is a first draft -- and if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair 
>>>>>> Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/c92e242d/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Oct 15 05:11:22 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:11:22 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <KkE8-JR6fun1qEojxzby8_e8qT6qCopE8l9uk6euSmMQTqHWlUGda3dNER8R0qQ2gCP1ez-QqxPQE6oavBLdsptrPZ5jkwkdkc10UnzPT5s=@ferdeline.com>
 <5qxC5StGd-L7HK2oDsJK2PJwzqvQ1SSY4Gy91yVTXubjicnoFfPCbx8fCColJQqxReKSGivc4HW7ColmoPh-h71FP8WLF9uCOKIQp0MtzDQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <9c38eab0-7cb9-8e59-df07-17f3b626c283@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
 <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

thanks for those participating in the editing.
I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am wondering how
much we should be strategical here.  We should escalate gradually (and
assertively) depending on the situation, but putting nuclear option, in the
beginning, may not work. There is a sense of emergency here and we have to
act quickly.

I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we should follow
and if we want to go into the campaign path, getting media attention and so
we would need to have a clear plan, get allies and experienced folks to
support us.  As I shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during
Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from that.  I
brought that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the
situation and send their comments. I understand that is a different context
but we can start by leveraging our membership: EDRi,  EFF, Accessnow and
many others, I volunteer with others to reach them.

I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns and so we
must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next steps ( we will need to
allocate time for that on formal and informal meetings) to outline a plan
to follow.

let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks prior to Abu
Dhabi meeting.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> Very nice edit.
>
> Stephanie.
>
> On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>
> I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two
> phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the
> ending were it says we would go to court.
> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary
> and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if
> you may).
> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want
> to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into
> compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it
> under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel that
> once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing to lose
> from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of senior
> management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will
> have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s continued,
> 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As we are sure
> you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to sue the Data
> Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately
> will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you
> taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly
> and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we
> do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go
> through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design,
> being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the
> multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we
> should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a
> resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the
> right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only
> to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last
> paragraph:
>
> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State
> agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea.
> As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using
> our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on
> ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is
> way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why
> Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still
> coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public
> campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be
> an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the
> model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to
> the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating
> our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to
> put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves
> is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>
> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put
> it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph
> hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the
> letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the
> issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite
> to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges
> you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will
> stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that
> NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder
> model.
>
> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that
> states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we
> should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a
> vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and
> hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think
> we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and
> sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN
> know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation,
> or *we will* avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we
> will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something
> I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do
> we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year
> ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>
> Warm wishes, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow
> and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public
> with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote
> agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the
> event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet,
> I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before
> the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written
> official letter.
>
> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in
> a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t
> recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder:
> ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we
> should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the
> threat.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter
> which includes the Chair's name.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
>
> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>
> cheers Steph
>
> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a
> proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on
> sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name,
> perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>
> Many thanks, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong
> this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the
> false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of
> ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these
> edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all
> documented.
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google
> password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we
> should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the
> DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris,
> I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong
> kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft
> statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we
> need to sharpen that a bit.
>
> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am
> losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around
> trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed
> of themselves.
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the
>> helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward,
>> please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes
>> you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>
>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps
>> even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google
>> Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>
>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on
>> this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect.
>> That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have
>> been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with
>> this regulation.
>>
>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help
>> engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is
>> an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How
>> would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this
>> desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for the draft,
>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the
>> process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems
>> 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data
>> protection conference (that is already passed)
>>
>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;)
>> while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the
>> use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that
>> doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add
>> more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not
>> just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>
>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I
>> put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get
>> this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the
>> discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community
>> session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent
>>> correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it
>>> here.
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>  I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a
>>> first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best, Ayden
>>>
>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_____________________
> __________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171015/9262b508/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Oct 15 18:33:20 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:33:20 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
 <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Rafik,

Thanks for your comments.

I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear that our words are not an empty threat, and definitive that consequences will follow if ICANN does not meet its obligations under the GDPR.

I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's revisions, though I think it does now sound like an empty threat. The ambiguity sounds to me like we do not know what our course of action will be, when that is incorrect. In the previous draft we were very clear: if ICANN does not comply with European data protection law, we will evail ourselves next May of the Data Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court. But we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and speaking only for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have other comments to write; so if there is consensus on this letter as attached, we might as well send it. If we do not, let's not.

I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a conversation around next steps. I have tried on the policy call, on this list, on Skype channels to talk campaigns. We all have our own interests at ICANN and follow different topics; I get that. This is something I am following so I have more time for it. And it is for that reason that I say, we are not going to get allies like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the time to discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if we reach out to others, we should not be asking for much more than a signature on a letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign that we are leading. We cannot expect them to take the lead here. We are in the ICANN working groups, being ignored and observing ICANN's non-compliance, and our civil society members have their own priorities which I am sure they have already budgeted for for FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in Abu Dhabi - separate from our policy committee meeting if possible - is essential if we decide to take this campaign forward, and I think we should.

But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year, because we are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that feeling.

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
> UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> thanks for those participating in the editing.
> I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am wondering how much we should be strategical here.  We should escalate gradually (and assertively) depending on the situation, but putting nuclear option, in the beginning, may not work. There is a sense of emergency here and we have to act quickly.
>
> I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we should follow and if we want to go into the campaign path, getting media attention and so we would need to have a clear plan, get allies and experienced folks to support us.  As I shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from that.  I brought that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the situation and send their comments. I understand that is a different context but we can start by leveraging our membership: EDRi,  EFF, Accessnow and many others, I volunteer with others to reach them.
>
> I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns and so we must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next steps ( we will need to allocate time for that on formal and informal meetings) to outline a plan to follow.
>
> let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks prior to Abu Dhabi meeting.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>
>> Very nice edit.
>>
>> Stephanie.
>>
>> On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>>
>>> I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the ending were it says we would go to court.
>>>
>>> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if you may).
>>>
>>> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel that once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing to lose from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of senior management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s continued, 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As we are sure you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to sue the Data Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mart?n
>>>
>>>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design, being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last paragraph:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mart?n
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warm wishes, Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official letter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Mart?n
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171015/f44ac60a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Letter - 16 Oct 17.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171015/f44ac60a/attachment.pdf>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Sun Oct 15 19:05:25 2017
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:05:25 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
 <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWoT9jvqsoQq691wrg0ruxSQjb=Sqkvj-E79wMzZdVDW5w@mail.gmail.com>

I haven't see Tapani involved in this discussion as NCSC Chair and who
is signing the letter. I hope he can have a look before the letter is
sent

2017-10-15 17:33 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear that our words
> are not an empty threat, and definitive that consequences will follow if
> ICANN does not meet its obligations under the GDPR.
>
> I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's revisions,
> though I think it does now sound like an empty threat. The ambiguity sounds
> to me like we do not know what our course of action will be, when that is
> incorrect. In the previous draft we were very clear: if ICANN does not
> comply with European data protection law, we will evail ourselves next May
> of the Data Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court. But
> we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and speaking only
> for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have other comments to write; so
> if there is consensus on this letter as attached, we might as well send it.
> If we do not, let's not.
>
> I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a conversation
> around next steps. I have tried on the policy call, on this list, on Skype
> channels to talk campaigns. We all have our own interests at ICANN and
> follow different topics; I get that. This is something I am following so I
> have more time for it. And it is for that reason that I say, we are not
> going to get allies like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the
> time to discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if we reach
> out to others, we should not be asking for much more than a signature on a
> letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign that we are leading. We cannot
> expect them to take the lead here. We are in the ICANN working groups, being
> ignored and observing ICANN's non-compliance, and our civil society members
> have their own priorities which I am sure they have already budgeted for for
> FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in Abu Dhabi -
> separate from our policy committee meeting if possible - is essential if we
> decide to take this campaign forward, and I think we should.
>
> But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year, because we
> are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that feeling.
>
> Ayden
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
>> UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, Ayden F?rdeline
>> <icann at ferdeline.com>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> thanks for those participating in the editing.
>> I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am wondering
>> how much we should be strategical here.  We should escalate gradually (and
>> assertively) depending on the situation, but putting nuclear option, in
>> the beginning, may not work. There is a sense of emergency here and we
>> have to act quickly.
>>
>> I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we should follow
>> and if we want to go into the campaign path, getting media attention and
>> so we would need to have a clear plan, get allies and experienced folks to
>> support us.  As I shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during
>> Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from that.  I
>> brought that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the
>> situation and send their comments. I understand that is a different
>> context but we can start by leveraging our membership: EDRi,  EFF,
>> Accessnow and many others, I volunteer with others to reach them.
>>
>> I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns and so we
>> must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next steps ( we will need
>> to allocate time for that on formal and informal meetings) to outline a
>> plan to follow.
>>
>> let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks prior to Abu
>> Dhabi meeting.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>>
>>> Very nice edit.
>>>
>>> Stephanie.
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two
>>>> phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the
>>>> ending were it says we would go to court.
>>>>
>>>> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary
>>>> and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint
>>>> if you may).
>>>>
>>>> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want
>>>> to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into
>>>> compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping
>>>> it under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel
>>>> that once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing
>>>> to lose from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of
>>>> senior management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that
>>>> we will have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s
>>>> continued, 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As
>>>> we are sure you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to
>>>> sue the Data Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user
>>>> rights, which ultimately will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mart?n
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you
>>>>> taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc
>>>>> directly and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with
>>>>> it? I think we do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that
>>>>> we should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard.
>>>>> We are, by design, being excluded from the conversation on this issue,
>>>>> and a flaw in the multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least
>>>>> to me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through
>>>>> which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies so to protect
>>>>> fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. To box ourselves in
>>>>> and to forever subject ourselves only to a process flawed by design
>>>>> would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last
>>>>>> paragraph:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State
>>>>>> agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad
>>>>>> idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and
>>>>>> keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out.
>>>>>> Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole
>>>>>> model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this case.
>>>>>> It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other
>>>>>> jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, and
>>>>>> as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state
>>>>>> claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action.
>>>>>> We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let?s use
>>>>>> them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to the board,
>>>>>> fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating our
>>>>>> members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to
>>>>>> put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for
>>>>>> ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to
>>>>>> put it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the
>>>>>> paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the
>>>>>> letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you
>>>>>> blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by
>>>>>> other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the threat you loose
>>>>>> all the communication bridges you build before in the letter. Anyone
>>>>>> with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN
>>>>>> problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening,
>>>>>> to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph
>>>>>> that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be
>>>>>> heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the
>>>>>> ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the
>>>>>> best tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Mart?n
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board
>>>>>>> and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do
>>>>>>> disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we
>>>>>>> have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important
>>>>>>> we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able
>>>>>>> to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of
>>>>>>> alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking
>>>>>>> about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking
>>>>>>> about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and
>>>>>>> what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or
>>>>>>> longer), and now is the time for action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Warm wishes, Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>>>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more
>>>>>>>> mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things,
>>>>>>>> like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I
>>>>>>>> think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I
>>>>>>>> understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that
>>>>>>>> as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual
>>>>>>>> exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official
>>>>>>>> letter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but
>>>>>>>> not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep
>>>>>>>> implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as
>>>>>>>> official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the
>>>>>>>> rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point
>>>>>>>> we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Mart?n
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the
>>>>>>>>> letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>>>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached
>>>>>>>>>>> a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement
>>>>>>>>>>> soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it
>>>>>>>>>>> carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed
>>>>>>>>>>> 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>> [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca),
>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted
>>>>>>>>>>>> with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account the helpful feedback that was received over the past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data protection authorities that we have been informing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this regulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence the process. as we discussed before here and on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conference (that is already passed)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from previous comments you think that doesn't include our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there and depending on how things go with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version by this Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read/edit it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair
>>>>>>>>> Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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


-- 
------------------------
**Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
& Mexico
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
- AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>
). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius
<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>)*
- *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet
Freedom.

Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)


From pileleji at ymca.gm  Sun Oct 15 19:12:21 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:12:21 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
 <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40uM6hPk4ShG2tnfsJfVFDy2pcgkwjEHW1tGbojm4R0ZPA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ayden,

I share your concerns the important to me is we having a road map moving on
from this letter, at least that will show a commitment on our side that we
really serious about it.

So my strong  emphasis is  on us getting a road map as soon as possible
working with our allies.

Kind Regards

Poncelet



On 15 October 2017 at 16:33, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear that our
> words are not an empty threat, and definitive that consequences will follow
> if ICANN does not meet its obligations under the GDPR.
>
> I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's revisions,
> though I think it does now sound like an empty threat. The ambiguity sounds
> to me like we do not know what our course of action will be, when that is
> incorrect. In the previous draft we were very clear: if ICANN does not
> comply with European data protection law, we will evail ourselves next May
> of the Data Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court.
> But we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and speaking
> only for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have other comments to
> write; so if there is consensus on this letter as attached, we might as
> well send it. If we do not, let's not.
>
> I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a conversation
> around next steps. I have tried on the policy call, on this list, on Skype
> channels to talk campaigns. We all have our own interests at ICANN and
> follow different topics; I get that. This is something I am following so I
> have more time for it. And it is for that reason that I say, we are not
> going to get allies like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the
> time to discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if we reach
> out to others, we should not be asking for much more than a signature on a
> letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign that we are leading. We cannot
> expect them to take the lead here. We are in the ICANN working groups,
> being ignored and observing ICANN's non-compliance, and our civil society
> members have their own priorities which I am sure they have already
> budgeted for for FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in
> Abu Dhabi - separate from our policy committee meeting if possible - is
> essential if we decide to take this campaign forward, and I think we should.
>
> But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year, because
> we are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that feeling.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
> UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, Ayden F?rdeline <
> icann at ferdeline.com>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> thanks for those participating in the editing.
> I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am wondering
> how much we should be strategical here.  We should escalate gradually (and
> assertively) depending on the situation, but putting nuclear option, in the
> beginning, may not work. There is a sense of emergency here and we have to
> act quickly.
>
> I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we should follow
> and if we want to go into the campaign path, getting media attention and so
> we would need to have a clear plan, get allies and experienced folks to
> support us.  As I shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during
> Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from that.  I
> brought that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the
> situation and send their comments. I understand that is a different context
> but we can start by leveraging our membership: EDRi,  EFF, Accessnow and
> many others, I volunteer with others to reach them.
>
> I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns and so we
> must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next steps ( we will need to
> allocate time for that on formal and informal meetings) to outline a plan
> to follow.
>
> let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks prior to Abu
> Dhabi meeting.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca>:
>
>> Very nice edit.
>>
>> Stephanie.
>>
>> On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>>
>> I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two
>> phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the
>> ending were it says we would go to court.
>>
>> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary
>> and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if
>> you may).
>>
>> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want
>> to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into
>> compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it
>> under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel that
>> once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing to lose
>> from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of senior
>> management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will
>> have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s continued,
>> 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As we are sure
>> you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to sue the Data
>> Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately
>> will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you
>> taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly
>> and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we
>> do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go
>> through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design,
>> being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the
>> multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we
>> should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a
>> resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the
>> right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only
>> to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last
>> paragraph:
>>
>> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State
>> agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea.
>> As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using
>> our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on
>> ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is
>> way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why
>> Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still
>> coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public
>> campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be
>> an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the
>> model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to
>> the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating
>> our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to
>> put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves
>> is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>>
>> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put
>> it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph
>> hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the
>> letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the
>> issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite
>> to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges
>> you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will
>> stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that
>> NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder
>> model.
>>
>> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that
>> states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we
>> should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a
>> vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and
>> hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think
>> we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and
>> sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN
>> know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation,
>> or *we will* avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we
>> will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something
>> I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do
>> we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year
>> ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>
>> Warm wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow
>> and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public
>> with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote
>> agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the
>> event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet,
>> I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before
>> the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written
>> official letter.
>>
>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not
>> in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I
>> wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position.
>> Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still
>> think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take
>> away the threat.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter
>> which includes the Chair's name.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>>
>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>
>> cheers Steph
>>
>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a
>> proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on
>> sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name,
>> perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>
>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong
>> this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the
>> false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of
>> ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these
>> edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all
>> documented.
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google
>> password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we
>> should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the
>> DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris,
>> I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong
>> kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft
>> statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we
>> need to sharpen that a bit.
>>
>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am
>> losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around
>> trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed
>> of themselves.
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the
>>> helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward,
>>> please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes
>>> you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>> correspondence
>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>
>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps
>>> even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google
>>> Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>
>>>
>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on
>>> this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect.
>>> That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have
>>> been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with
>>> this regulation.
>>>
>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to
>>> help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives
>>> - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat.
>>> How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express
>>> this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>> correspondence
>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the
>>> process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems
>>> 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data
>>> protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>
>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;)
>>> while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the
>>> use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that
>>> doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add
>>> more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not
>>> just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>
>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I
>>> put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get
>>> this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the
>>> discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community
>>> session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent
>>>> correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it
>>>> here.
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>  I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a
>>>> first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_____________________
>> __________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171015/d5c358f5/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Oct 16 02:05:12 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:05:12 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee - GAC Liaison
	role
In-Reply-To: <CAJjzonHgOwPKr_YY7=BxBSVtajerfuJXXBkdzRUHOW+CYi7fhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJjzonHgOwPKr_YY7=BxBSVtajerfuJXXBkdzRUHOW+CYi7fhg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <752ad5e0-94e7-28f9-be7f-0154dcc7f7db@mail.utoronto.ca>

Congratulations to Julf, this is very good news indeed!

Stephanie Perrin



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Standing Selection Committee - GAC Liaison role
Date: 	Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:13:04 -0700
From: 	Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
CC: 	Gnso-ssc at icann.org



Hello,

On behalf of the Standing Selection Committee please see the attached 
motion the SSC is submitting to the Council to select Julf Helsingius as 
the Liaison to the GAC.

After considerable review and discussion the SSC agreed with full 
consensus on Julf as the candidate for this role.

Best regards,

Susan Kawaguchi
Chair of SSC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171015/fac98430/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Motion ? Appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC - 9 October 2017.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 116516 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171015/fac98430/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Oct 16 02:42:56 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:42:56 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
 <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmxyrfQeZkuAChNuLQvbPhw=g5qcZ1OfDf2gtkKgnx80w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

Thanks for your response and points taken.
as I suggested we should go gradually into escalation and leave space for
ICANN and staff to respond to our requests. We are enough assertive at this
stage and we can be more later on. it also gives us more time to think
about our strategy and get a plan (implementation) for the campaign and the
resources needed for that. it is not empty words and we shouldn't put a
threat what we don't have as a group a clear idea and support how we will
do so.

I am really looking for discussion(s) in Abu Dhabi and we should organize
several meetings for that to get an action plan and clear idea what we will
do and how. if people are ok with this, we can organize informal breakfast
meetings to work on that (unfortunately it is too late to book room).

>From other discussions in RDS skype channel, I understand there is a
question on what we can propose solutions, way to go forward and sharing
our positions, and Stephanie volunteered to draft that. I proposed that we
discuss GDPR at meeting with Board but that didn't get enough attraction.

we should finalize the letter by tomorrow. and I really ask the rest of
Policy Committee members to respond and comment. it is an improtant topic
for us as group.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-16 0:33 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear that our
> words are not an empty threat, and definitive that consequences will follow
> if ICANN does not meet its obligations under the GDPR.
>
> I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's revisions,
> though I think it does now sound like an empty threat. The ambiguity sounds
> to me like we do not know what our course of action will be, when that is
> incorrect. In the previous draft we were very clear: if ICANN does not
> comply with European data protection law, we will evail ourselves next May
> of the Data Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court.
> But we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and speaking
> only for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have other comments to
> write; so if there is consensus on this letter as attached, we might as
> well send it. If we do not, let's not.
>
> I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a conversation
> around next steps. I have tried on the policy call, on this list, on Skype
> channels to talk campaigns. We all have our own interests at ICANN and
> follow different topics; I get that. This is something I am following so I
> have more time for it. And it is for that reason that I say, we are not
> going to get allies like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the
> time to discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if we reach
> out to others, we should not be asking for much more than a signature on a
> letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign that we are leading. We cannot
> expect them to take the lead here. We are in the ICANN working groups,
> being ignored and observing ICANN's non-compliance, and our civil society
> members have their own priorities which I am sure they have already
> budgeted for for FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in
> Abu Dhabi - separate from our policy committee meeting if possible - is
> essential if we decide to take this campaign forward, and I think we should.
>
> But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year, because
> we are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that feeling.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
> UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, Ayden F?rdeline <
> icann at ferdeline.com>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> thanks for those participating in the editing.
> I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am wondering
> how much we should be strategical here.  We should escalate gradually (and
> assertively) depending on the situation, but putting nuclear option, in the
> beginning, may not work. There is a sense of emergency here and we have to
> act quickly.
>
> I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we should follow
> and if we want to go into the campaign path, getting media attention and so
> we would need to have a clear plan, get allies and experienced folks to
> support us.  As I shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during
> Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from that.  I
> brought that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the
> situation and send their comments. I understand that is a different context
> but we can start by leveraging our membership: EDRi,  EFF, Accessnow and
> many others, I volunteer with others to reach them.
>
> I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns and so we
> must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next steps ( we will need to
> allocate time for that on formal and informal meetings) to outline a plan
> to follow.
>
> let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks prior to Abu
> Dhabi meeting.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca>:
>
>> Very nice edit.
>>
>> Stephanie.
>>
>> On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>>
>> I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two
>> phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the
>> ending were it says we would go to court.
>>
>> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary
>> and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if
>> you may).
>>
>> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want
>> to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into
>> compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it
>> under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel that
>> once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing to lose
>> from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of senior
>> management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will
>> have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s continued,
>> 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As we are sure
>> you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to sue the Data
>> Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately
>> will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you
>> taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly
>> and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we
>> do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go
>> through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design,
>> being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the
>> multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we
>> should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a
>> resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the
>> right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only
>> to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last
>> paragraph:
>>
>> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State
>> agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea.
>> As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using
>> our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on
>> ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is
>> way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why
>> Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still
>> coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public
>> campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be
>> an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the
>> model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to
>> the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating
>> our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to
>> put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves
>> is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>>
>> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put
>> it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph
>> hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the
>> letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the
>> issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite
>> to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges
>> you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will
>> stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that
>> NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder
>> model.
>>
>> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that
>> states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we
>> should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a
>> vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and
>> hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think
>> we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and
>> sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN
>> know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation,
>> or *we will* avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we
>> will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something
>> I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do
>> we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year
>> ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>
>> Warm wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow
>> and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public
>> with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote
>> agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the
>> event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet,
>> I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before
>> the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written
>> official letter.
>>
>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not
>> in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I
>> wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position.
>> Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still
>> think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take
>> away the threat.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter
>> which includes the Chair's name.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>>
>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>
>> cheers Steph
>>
>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a
>> proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on
>> sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name,
>> perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>
>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>> correspondence
>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong
>> this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the
>> false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of
>> ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these
>> edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all
>> documented.
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google
>> password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we
>> should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the
>> DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris,
>> I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong
>> kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft
>> statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we
>> need to sharpen that a bit.
>>
>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am
>> losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around
>> trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed
>> of themselves.
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the
>>> helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward,
>>> please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes
>>> you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>> correspondence
>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>
>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps
>>> even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google
>>> Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>
>>>
>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on
>>> this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect.
>>> That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have
>>> been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with
>>> this regulation.
>>>
>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to
>>> help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives
>>> - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat.
>>> How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express
>>> this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>> correspondence
>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the draft,
>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the
>>> process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems
>>> 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data
>>> protection conference (that is already passed)
>>>
>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;)
>>> while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the
>>> use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that
>>> doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add
>>> more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not
>>> just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>
>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I
>>> put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get
>>> this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the
>>> discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community
>>> session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent
>>>> correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it
>>>> here.
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>  I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a
>>>> first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best, Ayden
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_____________________
>> __________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171016/f326bade/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Oct 16 02:54:18 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:54:18 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for Policy Committee meeting in Abu Dhabi
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh==9xCpbt6HuHigoCdoNt12aYCiC-XGLCc7nTHQxYSyFg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

please find below a rough draft agenda for our meeting in Abu Dhabi
https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIf/gnso-non-commercial-stakeholder-group-ncsg-policy-committee-meeting,
we have basically 90 minutes:

1- Review of GNSO Council agenda
     - Motions discussions/voting
2- Topics for discussions:
    - How to respond to GDPR discussion
    - Ongoing PDPs: any reports from the PDP working group sessions
    - Planning  & Prioritization
3- AOB

it is quite similar to previous meetings but wondering what we can change
or add more.  depending on motions we can spend more or less time on them
but I do believe we should move to more strategical discussion and planning
of policy activities.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171016/30f638ae/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Mon Oct 16 03:00:24 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:00:24 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmxyrfQeZkuAChNuLQvbPhw=g5qcZ1OfDf2gtkKgnx80w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
 <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmxyrfQeZkuAChNuLQvbPhw=g5qcZ1OfDf2gtkKgnx80w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5921E872-AFBD-4D16-A6D4-2A8C7A3BA71F@gmail.com>

I agree with Rafik. I also stated my concerns and volunteer to help with the strategy, although GDRP nor RDS are my thing, the lawyer in me can be use to add some value. This letter is not the end for sure. 

Let?s discuss it more in depth in Abu Dabi, and thank you Ayden for all the hard work you put into this, the letter is really good and I hope I didn't ruin it too much with my comments, they come in good faith.

Cheers all,
Mart?n


> On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:42 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ayden,
> 
> Thanks for your response and points taken.
> as I suggested we should go gradually into escalation and leave space for ICANN and staff to respond to our requests. We are enough assertive at this stage and we can be more later on. it also gives us more time to think about our strategy and get a plan (implementation) for the campaign and the resources needed for that. it is not empty words and we shouldn't put a threat what we don't have as a group a clear idea and support how we will do so. 
> 
> I am really looking for discussion(s) in Abu Dhabi and we should organize several meetings for that to get an action plan and clear idea what we will do and how. if people are ok with this, we can organize informal breakfast meetings to work on that (unfortunately it is too late to book room). 
> 
> From other discussions in RDS skype channel, I understand there is a question on what we can propose solutions, way to go forward and sharing our positions, and Stephanie volunteered to draft that. I proposed that we discuss GDPR at meeting with Board but that didn't get enough attraction.
> 
> we should finalize the letter by tomorrow. and I really ask the rest of Policy Committee members to respond and comment. it is an improtant topic for us as group.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
>  
> 2017-10-16 0:33 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
> Hi Rafik,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear that our words are not an empty threat, and definitive that consequences will follow if ICANN does not meet its obligations under the GDPR.
> 
> I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's revisions, though I think it does now sound like an empty threat. The ambiguity sounds to me like we do not know what our course of action will be, when that is incorrect. In the previous draft we were very clear: if ICANN does not comply with European data protection law, we will evail ourselves next May of the Data Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court. But we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and speaking only for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have other comments to write; so if there is consensus on this letter as attached, we might as well send it. If we do not, let's not.
> 
> I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a conversation around next steps. I have tried on the policy call, on this list, on Skype channels to talk campaigns. We all have our own interests at ICANN and follow different topics; I get that. This is something I am following so I have more time for it. And it is for that reason that I say, we are not going to get allies like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the time to discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if we reach out to others, we should not be asking for much more than a signature on a letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign that we are leading. We cannot expect them to take the lead here. We are in the ICANN working groups, being ignored and observing ICANN's non-compliance, and our civil society members have their own priorities which I am sure they have already budgeted for for FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in Abu Dhabi - separate from our policy committee meeting if possible - is essential if we decide to take this campaign forward, and I think we should.
> 
> But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year, because we are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that feeling.
> 
> Ayden
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>> Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
>> UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
>> Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> thanks for those participating in the editing. 
>> I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am wondering how much we should be strategical here.  We should escalate gradually (and assertively) depending on the situation, but putting nuclear option, in the beginning, may not work. There is a sense of emergency here and we have to act quickly.
>> 
>> I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we should follow and if we want to go into the campaign path, getting media attention and so we would need to have a clear plan, get allies and experienced folks to support us.  As I shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from that.  I brought that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the situation and send their comments. I understand that is a different context but we can start by leveraging our membership: EDRi,  EFF, Accessnow and many others, I volunteer with others to reach them.
>> 
>> I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns and so we must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next steps ( we will need to allocate time for that on formal and informal meetings) to outline a plan to follow.
>> 
>> let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks prior to Abu Dhabi meeting.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>> Very nice edit.
>> 
>> Stephanie.
>> 
>> 
>> On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>>> I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the ending were it says we would go to court.
>>> 
>>> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if you may).
>>> 
>>> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel that once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing to lose from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of senior management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s continued, 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As we are sure you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to sue the Data Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mart?n
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design, being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>>> 
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last paragraph:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing to the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put it?s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mart?n
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Warm wishes, Ayden 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>>>>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official letter. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Mart?n
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ayden 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden  
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented. 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline 
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your comments. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents! 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them? 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the draft, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns                                                           in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. You can read/edit it here. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing> I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ _________________ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171015/222b960f/attachment.htm>

From matthew at intpolicy.com  Mon Oct 16 09:27:44 2017
From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:27:44 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee - GAC
 Liaison role
In-Reply-To: <752ad5e0-94e7-28f9-be7f-0154dcc7f7db@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAJjzonHgOwPKr_YY7=BxBSVtajerfuJXXBkdzRUHOW+CYi7fhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <752ad5e0-94e7-28f9-be7f-0154dcc7f7db@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <e854f8a6-798b-62e3-e437-fbbde8404580@intpolicy.com>

Indeed - congratz!


On 16/10/2017 00:05, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Congratulations to Julf, this is very good news indeed!
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[council] Standing Selection Committee - GAC Liaison role
> Date: 	Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:13:04 -0700
> From: 	Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
> To: 	GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> CC: 	Gnso-ssc at icann.org
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On behalf of the Standing Selection Committee please see the attached 
> motion the SSC is submitting to the Council to select Julf Helsingius 
> as the Liaison to the GAC.
>
> After considerable review and discussion the SSC agreed with full 
> consensus on Julf as the candidate for this role.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Susan Kawaguchi
> Chair of SSC
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171016/9564e451/attachment.htm>

From matthew at intpolicy.com  Mon Oct 16 09:50:52 2017
From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:50:52 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmxyrfQeZkuAChNuLQvbPhw=g5qcZ1OfDf2gtkKgnx80w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <gBsKOCmPYuMtbR9LNV48yyiIyNQh1G60Nqj2kaQfdHnL_rh3_ulSQNA3d1eVMt-lt94-x4djVPqpKaUk0u8-2thYeUgixRQU02NY2KR-pFE=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
 <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmxyrfQeZkuAChNuLQvbPhw=g5qcZ1OfDf2gtkKgnx80w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <69006d0a-d2bf-926a-c1dc-b45a1a5be907@intpolicy.com>

Hi all

I would like to suggest that the letter minus the last para be submitted 
(I am proposing one or two other edits in the text). There are many 
important points in the remaining text that make it a valuable 
contribution (thank you Ayden and others for the drafting) - 
particularly reinforcing the importance of outside counsel's input.? The 
possibility of a campaign, as well as how we build a solutions oriented 
approach to GDPR as noted below by Rafik, should be discussed face to 
face in Abu Dhabi - these are very important issues, and should be given 
appropriate time and space to address in person rather than over e-mail.

Matthew


On 16/10/2017 00:42, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks for your response and points?taken.
> as I suggested we should go gradually into escalation and leave space 
> for ICANN and staff to respond to our requests. We are enough 
> assertive at this stage and we can be more later on. it also gives us 
> more time to think about our strategy and get a plan (implementation) 
> for the campaign and the resources needed for that. it is not empty 
> words and we shouldn't put a threat what we don't have as a group a 
> clear idea and support how we will do so.
>
> I am really looking for discussion(s) in Abu?Dhabi and we should 
> organize several meetings for that to get an action plan and clear 
> idea what we will do and how. if people are ok with this, we can 
> organize informal?breakfast meetings to work on that (unfortunately it 
> is too late to book room).
>
> From other discussions in RDS skype channel, I understand there is a 
> question on what we can propose solutions, way to go forward and 
> sharing our positions, and Stephanie volunteered to draft that. I 
> proposed that we discuss GDPR at meeting with Board but that didn't 
> get enough attraction.
>
> we should finalize the letter by tomorrow. and I really ask the rest 
> of Policy Committee members to respond and comment. it is an improtant 
> topic for us as group.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-16 0:33 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
>     Hi Rafik,
>
>     Thanks for your comments.
>
>     I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear that
>     our words are not an empty threat, and definitive that
>     consequences will follow if ICANN does not meet its obligations
>     under the GDPR.
>
>     I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's
>     revisions, though I think it does now sound like an empty threat.
>     The ambiguity sounds to me like we do not know what our course of
>     action will be, when that is incorrect. In the previous draft we
>     were very clear: if ICANN does not comply with European data
>     protection law, we will evail ourselves next May of the Data
>     Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court. But
>     we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and
>     speaking only for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have
>     other comments to write; so if there is consensus on this letter
>     as attached, we might as well send it. If we do not, let's not.
>
>     I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a
>     conversation around next steps. I have tried on the policy call,
>     on this list, on Skype channels to talk campaigns. We all have our
>     own interests at ICANN and follow different topics; I get that.
>     This is something I am following so I have more time for it. And
>     it is for that reason that I say, we are not going to get allies
>     like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the time to
>     discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if we reach
>     out to others, we should not be asking for much more than a
>     signature on a letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign that we
>     are leading. We cannot expect them to take the lead here. We are
>     in the ICANN working groups, being ignored and observing ICANN's
>     non-compliance, and our civil society members have their own
>     priorities which I am sure they have already budgeted for for
>     FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in Abu
>     Dhabi - separate from our policy committee meeting if possible -
>     is essential if we decide to take this campaign forward, and I
>     think we should.
>
>     But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year,
>     because we are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that
>     feeling.
>
>     Ayden
>
>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>     correspondence
>>     Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
>>     UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
>>     From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>     To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
>>     Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>, Ayden F?rdeline
>>     <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>,
>>     ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>     <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     thanks for those participating in the editing.
>>     I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am
>>     wondering how much we should be strategical here.? We should
>>     escalate gradually (and assertively) depending on the situation,
>>     but putting nuclear option, in the beginning, may not work. There
>>     is a sense of emergency here and we have to act quickly.
>>
>>     I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we
>>     should follow and if we want to go into the campaign path,
>>     getting media?attention and so we would need to have a clear
>>     plan, get allies and experienced folks to support us.? As I
>>     shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during Privacy/Proxy
>>     service public comments and we can learn from that.? I brought
>>     that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the
>>     situation and send their comments. I understand that is a
>>     different context but we can start by leveraging our membership:
>>     EDRi,? EFF, Accessnow?and many others, I volunteer with others to
>>     reach them.
>>
>>     I think we can shape a?letter expressing strongly our concerns
>>     and so we must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next
>>     steps ( we will need to allocate time for that on formal and
>>     informal meetings) to outline a plan to follow.
>>
>>     let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks
>>     prior to Abu Dhabi meeting.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>>
>>         Very nice edit.
>>
>>         Stephanie.
>>
>>
>>         On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>>>         I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically
>>>         took out two phrases: the one were it says we would apply to
>>>         DP authorities, and the ending were it says we would go to
>>>         court.
>>>
>>>         This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we
>>>         feel necessary and we outline the hard-risk real risk of
>>>         ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if you may).
>>>
>>>         "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder
>>>         community, we want to participate in the policy changes
>>>         which will see ICANN come into compliance with data
>>>         protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it under
>>>         the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and
>>>         feel that once again certain stakeholders with everything to
>>>         gain and nothing to lose from the collection of end-user
>>>         data are getting the ear of senior management, whilst we get
>>>         the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will have to?take
>>>         all actions at our disposal regarding?ICANN?s continued,
>>>         19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law.
>>>         As we are sure you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals
>>>         the right to sue the Data Protection Authorities for failure
>>>         to protect end-user rights, which ultimately will impact in
>>>         the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>>>
>>>         Cheers,
>>>         Mart?n
>>>
>>>>         On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>         <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>>         Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I
>>>>         appreciate you taking the time. Could I please ask that you
>>>>         edit the Google Doc directly and massage the final
>>>>         paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we do
>>>>         need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we
>>>>         should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to
>>>>         be heard. We are, by design, being excluded from the
>>>>         conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the
>>>>         multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to
>>>>         me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal avenues
>>>>         through which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies so
>>>>         to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to
>>>>         privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject
>>>>         ourselves only to a process flawed by design would, I
>>>>         think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>>>
>>>>         Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and
>>>>>         IPC correspondence
>>>>>         Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>>>>>         UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>>>>>         From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>>>         To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>         <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>         Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>,
>>>>>         ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>         <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but
>>>>>         for the last paragraph:
>>>>>
>>>>>         1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign
>>>>>         with State agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the
>>>>>         MS model, is a very bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go
>>>>>         to governments through the GAC and keep using our GNSO
>>>>>         procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going
>>>>>         berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the
>>>>>         whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to
>>>>>         do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe?
>>>>>         What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still
>>>>>         coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists
>>>>>         we can do public campaigns and state claims in defense of
>>>>>         our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action. We have
>>>>>         procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let?s
>>>>>         use them fearless. Let?s call the ombudsman, keep writing
>>>>>         to the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working
>>>>>         group coordinating our members, etc (we have councilors!).
>>>>>         Asking data protection agencies to put pressure for us, in
>>>>>         NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves is not
>>>>>         ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>>>>>
>>>>>         2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a
>>>>>         governmental agency to put it?s nose in the GNSO process,
>>>>>         which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph hits a big
>>>>>         brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter,
>>>>>         the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes
>>>>>         you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation.
>>>>>         Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you
>>>>>         read the threat you loose all the communication bridges
>>>>>         you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge
>>>>>         of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN problem of
>>>>>         addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening,
>>>>>         to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model.
>>>>>
>>>>>         3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last
>>>>>         paragraph that states both our level of concern, alert and
>>>>>         the demand to be heard. But we should threaten to use
>>>>>         either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a vague
>>>>>         thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Cheers,
>>>>>         Mart?n
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>         On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>         <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take
>>>>>>         it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am
>>>>>>         afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be
>>>>>>         forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and
>>>>>>         sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch
>>>>>>         back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being
>>>>>>         able to input into this conversation, or /we will/ avail
>>>>>>         ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will
>>>>>>         need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that
>>>>>>         is something I have been thinking about for next year;
>>>>>>         what are the next steps, when do we launch, and what do
>>>>>>         we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago
>>>>>>         (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Warm wishes, Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC
>>>>>>>         and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>         Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>>>>>>         UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>>>>>>         From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>>>>         <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>         To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>         <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>         Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>,
>>>>>>>         ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>         <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be
>>>>>>>         much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph,
>>>>>>>         not threaten things, like going public with a campaign
>>>>>>>         with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t
>>>>>>>         promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we
>>>>>>>         are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>         model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I
>>>>>>>         wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to
>>>>>>>         make it before the actual exclusion of the process
>>>>>>>         happen, much less by ?by written official letter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         I do believe that we have to talk about alternative
>>>>>>>         strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big
>>>>>>>         threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend to go
>>>>>>>         with that nor sign it as official NCSG position.
>>>>>>>         Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks
>>>>>>>         amazing and I still think we should make clear the point
>>>>>>>         we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Cheers,
>>>>>>>         Mart?n
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>         <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a
>>>>>>>>         copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         Ayden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC
>>>>>>>>>         and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>         Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>         UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>>>>>>         From:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>         To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>>>         ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is><ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>         Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         I have done some final polishing to the letter, and
>>>>>>>>>>         have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may
>>>>>>>>>>         be able to reach agreement soon on sending this
>>>>>>>>>>         letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a
>>>>>>>>>>         name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be
>>>>>>>>>>         signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re:
>>>>>>>>>>>         BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>         Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>         UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>>>>>>         From:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>         To: Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>         Perrin<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As
>>>>>>>>>>>         we saw in Hong Kong this month, our?public silence
>>>>>>>>>>>         is being manipulated and used to make the false
>>>>>>>>>>>         claim that we are being consulted with and are an
>>>>>>>>>>>         integral?part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the
>>>>>>>>>>>         GDPR, when we are not.?Thanks for these edits
>>>>>>>>>>>         Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get
>>>>>>>>>>>         it all documented.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>>>         Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>         <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous,
>>>>>>>>>>>>         always forget my google password) and made quite a
>>>>>>>>>>>>         few changes. I like the idea, but I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>         be a bit more specific.? In terms of informing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>         DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>         IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>         briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong
>>>>>>>>>>>>         kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>         there is a draft statement coming. So they know we
>>>>>>>>>>>>         have been briefing them for two years, we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>         sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>         I will confess, I am losing my patience with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>         lot. They spend gobs of money gadding around trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>         to nullify end user rights. Totally ignore us.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         reminder for everyone to review the letter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         share comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         F?rdeline<icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Also - I have now revised this letter again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>             taking into account the helpful feedback that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>             was received over the past 48 hours; moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>             forward, please feel free to edit the document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>             directly if you have any changes you'd like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>             see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             From:icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Hi Rafik,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Thank you very much for your comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             It would be great if we could finalise this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             that day. I very much welcome edits directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             to the Google Doc; everyone on this list,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             please help write it and shape its contents!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             I would also like to propose that we write a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             into effect. That way we can document for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             data protection authorities that we have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             informing ICANN in excess of six months of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             their need to comply with this regulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             today - that we need to help engineer a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             conversation between the DPAs and their GAC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             representatives - is an interesting one, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             one which seemed to have support in the chat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             How would we go about this, however? Do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             write to the GAC? Do we express this desire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             with them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             From:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Thanks for the draft,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             it is important we make a point to voice our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             concerns and influence the process. as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             discussed before here and on the last call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             taskforce not being informed 2- the last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Data protection conference (that is already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             passed)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             for the current letter, indeed we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             tweak the language there ;) while we keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             they reject the use case matrix and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             understood from previous comments you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             that doesn't?include our perspective. I add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             few comments but I think we can add more, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             particular, our concerns in general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             regarding the process and not just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             I ask other PC members to review the letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             a discussion item for today call. We need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             deadline to get this done and prior to Abud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             discussion there and depending on how things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             go with the cross-community session. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             propose that we reach a new version by this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Rafik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             F?rdeline<icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 I have drafted a letter to ICANN in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 response to the recent correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 received from the BC and the IPC.You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 read/edit it here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing>I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 know the language is provocative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 (intentionally so), but this is a first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 draft -- and if you disapprove please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 provide alternative language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 Best, Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         <Proposed Letter - Chair
>>>>>>>>         Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 


Matthew Shears
matthew at intpolicy.com
+447712472987
Skype:mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171016/2bc8afbd/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Mon Oct 16 17:54:38 2017
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:54:38 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
In-Reply-To: <69006d0a-d2bf-926a-c1dc-b45a1a5be907@intpolicy.com>
References: <oy8_qCbTD-OdaD4kZssHpFIe8O7ZDfZ7bJliUcEidt5j2x4D3QtbgK2EpMA4J4__AS2KN0pLgxJ9qhFFCoG-ynCStJb3xF1b6L505wMYWmM=@ferdeline.com>
 <409BE888-34CC-4CAE-A81F-091675409B96@gmail.com>
 <IxUBgR-sj11mz88WCmpXbu80MolKybMnLLCqGrf2U2wKe5bcg2sPvjJdndOEn5kKRaoP2MQZsIt_hcXHFOrMKFuTbYXmRxQxIJB0u7dGzL8=@ferdeline.com>
 <15359F77-DD03-4297-8FF0-6AA8B0678D5F@gmail.com>
 <jMp7OwdBLL4Xl7T0LPal2Bwe4QxKxwqAd2OVhnVRhYrQXjHCSQwsYbEEIBbK26McebPSBxnrAoi9Wcg_cL-XmGT9dKodj2eWl1yeYZU5cBM=@ferdeline.com>
 <5D16C0C0-B5C8-440D-8BAE-31A6A9DEE2E7@gmail.com>
 <7f591bf4-fb80-59e1-1283-fb3d7f6987cf@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThknEj6=+GPy6gioXArDRcv+0fdNCMPWwMBY5ycJfoHNMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <zI9SiQ-keY88OPY_q1x1IeEDPkOUnSXohrJf-LI0mZskjrwLCxnOXkSDlGDujls6y_O3Xm1GT1w23QPPcQZe_QH2tPwqbtsKaelf_gFS58o=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmxyrfQeZkuAChNuLQvbPhw=g5qcZ1OfDf2gtkKgnx80w@mail.gmail.com>
 <69006d0a-d2bf-926a-c1dc-b45a1a5be907@intpolicy.com>
Message-ID: <6012a336-2760-6819-0c7d-b6cbc912012d@mpicc.de>

All,

Sorry for weighing in later -- first family holidays this year and then
last minute travels. This letter required more attention than I had due
to my limited bandwidth.

I agree with those suggesting removing the last para. I am not even
talking about how we would look with the threat of enforcement or
whether it is politically right.

What I can say here as a lawyer, that unless we are 100% sure when and
how we procedural are going to enforce this threat *and* unless we are
100% sure that we are going to do this -- it shouldn't be there.

I am not even sure how procedurally this issue can be addressed by us in
the EU courts (DPAs - yes). 

Waving the legal threats should be possible only if we are going to do
this immediately after getting a negative answer. Taking into account
the GDPR implementation timeline, we can easily be ignored by ICANN
legal. Furthermore, the threats could water down our main messages.

We can continue the discussion about legal tools to pursue our position
though. But for now the letter is great without the last para. Ayden,
thank you so much for your impressive work on drafting it.

Cheers,

Tanya

On 16/10/17 08:50, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I would like to suggest that the letter minus the last para be
> submitted (I am proposing one or two other edits in the text).  There
> are many important points in the remaining text that make it a
> valuable contribution (thank you Ayden and others for the drafting) -
> particularly reinforcing the importance of outside counsel's input. 
> The possibility of a campaign, as well as how we build a solutions
> oriented approach to GDPR as noted below by Rafik, should be discussed
> face to face in Abu Dhabi - these are very important issues, and
> should be given appropriate time and space to address in person rather
> than over e-mail.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 16/10/2017 00:42, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for your response and points taken.
>> as I suggested we should go gradually into escalation and leave space
>> for ICANN and staff to respond to our requests. We are enough
>> assertive at this stage and we can be more later on. it also gives us
>> more time to think about our strategy and get a plan (implementation)
>> for the campaign and the resources needed for that. it is not empty
>> words and we shouldn't put a threat what we don't have as a group a
>> clear idea and support how we will do so. 
>>
>> I am really looking for discussion(s) in Abu Dhabi and we should
>> organize several meetings for that to get an action plan and clear
>> idea what we will do and how. if people are ok with this, we can
>> organize informal breakfast meetings to work on that (unfortunately
>> it is too late to book room). 
>>
>> From other discussions in RDS skype channel, I understand there is a
>> question on what we can propose solutions, way to go forward and
>> sharing our positions, and Stephanie volunteered to draft that. I
>> proposed that we discuss GDPR at meeting with Board but that didn't
>> get enough attraction.
>>
>> we should finalize the letter by tomorrow. and I really ask the rest
>> of Policy Committee members to respond and comment. it is an
>> improtant topic for us as group.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>  
>> 2017-10-16 0:33 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>
>>     Hi Rafik,
>>
>>     Thanks for your comments.
>>
>>     I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear
>>     that our words are not an empty threat, and definitive that
>>     consequences will follow if ICANN does not meet its obligations
>>     under the GDPR.
>>
>>     I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's
>>     revisions, though I think it does now sound like an empty threat.
>>     The ambiguity sounds to me like we do not know what our course of
>>     action will be, when that is incorrect. In the previous draft we
>>     were very clear: if ICANN does not comply with European data
>>     protection law, we will evail ourselves next May of the Data
>>     Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court. But
>>     we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and
>>     speaking only for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have
>>     other comments to write; so if there is consensus on this letter
>>     as attached, we might as well send it. If we do not, let's not.
>>
>>     I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a
>>     conversation around next steps. I have tried on the policy call,
>>     on this list, on Skype channels to talk campaigns. We all have
>>     our own interests at ICANN and follow different topics; I get
>>     that. This is something I am following so I have more time for
>>     it. And it is for that reason that I say, we are not going to get
>>     allies like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the
>>     time to discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if
>>     we reach out to others, we should not be asking for much more
>>     than a signature on a letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign
>>     that we are leading. We cannot expect them to take the lead here.
>>     We are in the ICANN working groups, being ignored and observing
>>     ICANN's non-compliance, and our civil society members have their
>>     own priorities which I am sure they have already budgeted for for
>>     FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in Abu
>>     Dhabi - separate from our policy committee meeting if possible -
>>     is essential if we decide to take this campaign forward, and I
>>     think we should.
>>
>>     But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year,
>>     because we are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that
>>     feeling.
>>
>>     Ayden
>>
>>
>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
>>>     correspondence
>>>     Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
>>>     UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
>>>     From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>     To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
>>>     Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>     <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>,
>>>     ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>     <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>
>>>     Hi all,
>>>
>>>     thanks for those participating in the editing. 
>>>     I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am
>>>     wondering how much we should be strategical here.  We should
>>>     escalate gradually (and assertively) depending on the situation,
>>>     but putting nuclear option, in the beginning, may not work.
>>>     There is a sense of emergency here and we have to act quickly.
>>>
>>>     I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we
>>>     should follow and if we want to go into the campaign path,
>>>     getting media attention and so we would need to have a clear
>>>     plan, get allies and experienced folks to support us.  As I
>>>     shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during
>>>     Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from
>>>     that.  I brought that experience because it let many outsiders
>>>     be aware of the situation and send their comments. I understand
>>>     that is a different context but we can start by leveraging our
>>>     membership: EDRi,  EFF, Accessnow and many others, I volunteer
>>>     with others to reach them.
>>>
>>>     I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns
>>>     and so we must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next
>>>     steps ( we will need to allocate time for that on formal and
>>>     informal meetings) to outline a plan to follow.
>>>
>>>     let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks
>>>     prior to Abu Dhabi meeting.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>>>
>>>         Very nice edit.
>>>
>>>         Stephanie.
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
>>>>         I won?t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically
>>>>         took out two phrases: the one were it says we would apply
>>>>         to DP authorities, and the ending were it says we would go
>>>>         to court.
>>>>
>>>>         This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we
>>>>         feel necessary and we outline the hard-risk real risk of
>>>>         ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if you may).
>>>>
>>>>         "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder
>>>>         community, we want to participate in the policy changes
>>>>         which will see ICANN come into compliance with data
>>>>         protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it under
>>>>         the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and
>>>>         feel that once again certain stakeholders with everything
>>>>         to gain and nothing to lose from the collection of end-user
>>>>         data are getting the ear of senior management, whilst we
>>>>         get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will have
>>>>         to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN?s
>>>>         continued, 19-year streak of non-compliance with data
>>>>         protection law. As we are sure you are aware, the new GDPR
>>>>         gives individuals the right to sue the Data Protection
>>>>         Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which
>>>>         ultimately will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>>>>
>>>>         Cheers,
>>>>         Mart?n
>>>>
>>>>>         On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>         <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Hi Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>>         Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I
>>>>>         appreciate you taking the time. Could I please ask that
>>>>>         you edit the Google Doc directly and massage the final
>>>>>         paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we do
>>>>>         need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we
>>>>>         should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to
>>>>>         be heard. We are, by design, being excluded from the
>>>>>         conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the
>>>>>         multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to
>>>>>         me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal
>>>>>         avenues through which we can seek a resolution to gTLD
>>>>>         policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the
>>>>>         right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever
>>>>>         subject ourselves only to a process flawed by design
>>>>>         would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and
>>>>>>         IPC correspondence
>>>>>>         Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
>>>>>>         UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
>>>>>>         From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>>>         <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>>>>         To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>         <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>         Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>,
>>>>>>         ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>         <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but
>>>>>>         for the last paragraph:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign
>>>>>>         with State agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the
>>>>>>         MS model, is a very bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go
>>>>>>         to governments through the GAC and keep using our GNSO
>>>>>>         procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going
>>>>>>         berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the
>>>>>>         whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to
>>>>>>         do in this case. It?s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe?
>>>>>>         What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can
>>>>>>         still coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial
>>>>>>         activists we can do public campaigns and state claims in
>>>>>>         defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG
>>>>>>         action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside
>>>>>>         the model, let?s use them fearless. Let?s call the
>>>>>>         ombudsman, keep writing to the board, fill the open mic,
>>>>>>         massively go into working group coordinating our members,
>>>>>>         etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection
>>>>>>         agencies to put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside
>>>>>>         the process we set for ourselves is not ok, is a pandora
>>>>>>         box of precedent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a
>>>>>>         governmental agency to put it?s nose in the GNSO process,
>>>>>>         which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph hits a big
>>>>>>         brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter,
>>>>>>         the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes
>>>>>>         you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation.
>>>>>>         Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you
>>>>>>         read the threat you loose all the communication bridges
>>>>>>         you build before in the letter. Anyone with some
>>>>>>         knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN
>>>>>>         problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is
>>>>>>         threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the
>>>>>>         multistakeholder model. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last
>>>>>>         paragraph that states both our level of concern, alert
>>>>>>         and the demand to be heard. But we should threaten to use
>>>>>>         either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a vague
>>>>>>         thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Cheers,
>>>>>>         Mart?n
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>         <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take
>>>>>>>         it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am
>>>>>>>         afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be
>>>>>>>         forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored
>>>>>>>         and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we
>>>>>>>         punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about
>>>>>>>         being able to input into this conversation, or /we will/
>>>>>>>         avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end,
>>>>>>>         we will need to start thinking about campaign tactics
>>>>>>>         too -- that is something I have been thinking about for
>>>>>>>         next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch,
>>>>>>>         and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was
>>>>>>>         a year ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Warm wishes, Ayden 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC
>>>>>>>>         and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>         Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>>>>>>>         UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>>>>>>>         From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>         <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>         To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>         <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>>         Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>,
>>>>>>>>         ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>         <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         I?ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be
>>>>>>>>         much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph,
>>>>>>>>         not threaten things, like going public with a campaign
>>>>>>>>         with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn?t
>>>>>>>>         promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we
>>>>>>>>         are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>         model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I
>>>>>>>>         wouldn?t set that as precedent and I do not recommend
>>>>>>>>         to make it before the actual exclusion of the process
>>>>>>>>         happen, much less by  by written official letter. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         I do believe that we have to talk about alternative
>>>>>>>>         strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very
>>>>>>>>         big threat with deep implication, I wouldn?t recommend
>>>>>>>>         to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position.
>>>>>>>>         Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks
>>>>>>>>         amazing and I still think we should make clear the
>>>>>>>>         point we must be taken in account. Just take away the
>>>>>>>>         threat. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         Cheers,
>>>>>>>>         Mart?n
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden F?rdeline
>>>>>>>>>         <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a
>>>>>>>>>         copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC
>>>>>>>>>>         and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>         Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>>         UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>>>>>>>         From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>         To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>         ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my
>>>>>>>>>>         view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         cheers Steph
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>         Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         I have done some final polishing to the letter, and
>>>>>>>>>>>         have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may
>>>>>>>>>>>         be able to reach agreement soon on sending this
>>>>>>>>>>>         letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a
>>>>>>>>>>>         name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be
>>>>>>>>>>>         signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>         Many thanks, Ayden  
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re:
>>>>>>>>>>>>         BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>         UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>>>>>>>         From: icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         To: Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As
>>>>>>>>>>>>         we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence
>>>>>>>>>>>>         is being manipulated and used to make the false
>>>>>>>>>>>>         claim that we are being consulted with and are an
>>>>>>>>>>>>         integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>         GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get
>>>>>>>>>>>>         it all documented. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Ayden F?rdeline 
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         always forget my google password) and made quite a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         should be a bit more specific.  In terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         everyone has been briefed at the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         statement coming. So they know we have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         that a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         I will confess, I am losing my patience with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Stephanie 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         reminder for everyone to review the letter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         share comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Rafik 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Also - I have now revised this letter again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             taking into account the helpful feedback that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             was received over the past 48 hours; moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             forward, please feel free to edit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             document directly if you have any changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             you'd like to see made. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Hi Rafik, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Thank you very much for your comments. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             It would be great if we could finalise this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             letter by Friday and perhaps even send it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             out that day. I very much welcome edits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             list, please help write it and shape its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             contents! 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             I would also like to propose that we write a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             into effect. That way we can document for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             the data protection authorities that we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             been informing ICANN in excess of six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             of their need to comply with this regulation. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             today - that we need to help engineer a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             conversation between the DPAs and their GAC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             representatives - is an interesting one, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             one which seemed to have support in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             chat. How would we go about this, however?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             face-to-face with them? 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Best wishes, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Ayden  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             -------- Original Message -------- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Hi Ayden, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Thanks for the draft, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             it is important we make a point to voice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             our concerns and influence the process. as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             we discussed before here and on the last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             call we got 2 problems 1- our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             representatives in taskforce not being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             informed 2- the last Data protection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             conference (that is already passed) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             for the current letter, indeed we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             tweak the language there ;) while we keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             they reject the use case matrix and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             understood from previous comments you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             that doesn't include our perspective. I add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             few comments but I think we can add more,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             in particular, our concerns in general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             regarding the process and not just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             responding to BC and IPC requests. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             I ask other PC members to review the letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             a discussion item for today call. We need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             deadline to get this done and prior to Abud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             the discussion there and depending on how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             things go with the cross-community session.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             I propose that we reach a new version by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             this Friday. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Best, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             Rafik  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 Hi, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 I have drafted a letter to ICANN in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 response to the recent correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 received from the BC and the IPC. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 can read/edit it here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 know the language is provocative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 (intentionally so), but this is a first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 draft -- and if you disapprove please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 provide alternative language. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 Best, Ayden 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 ______________________________ _________________ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 NCSG-PC mailing list 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         <Proposed Letter - Chair
>>>>>>>>>         Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> -- 
>
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171016/f366afd2/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 17 10:27:01 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:27:01 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Agendas for meetings with Registries and Registrars
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkbixZnikvLezumuPTjrnhHhMK2diF1YOcyRZj0W29AKw@mail.gmail.com>

hi all,

we will have 2 meetings, one with registrars and another with registries.
The current proposed topics are:

With Registries:

- RDS
- GDPR
- Geonames
- RDAP Pilot initiative

 With Registrars

- Alignment on GDPR


it looks that GDPR and also RDS will be the main discussion with the 2
groups. any other suggestion?
of course, we will have to prepare for those meetings and it is clear that
we have to develop a  position and proposals on GDPR issue.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171017/ed7a0dd0/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 17 10:33:50 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:33:50 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Your input requested - topics and owners
 for joint sessions at ICANN60
In-Reply-To: <626560CA-A790-48CC-8E30-9DBB31959E8B@icann.org>
References: <626560CA-A790-48CC-8E30-9DBB31959E8B@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnDiLVCDw4LKWgeCQv=sySzX9RJ4Lsnk_7wMu0jqC3oVQ@mail.gmail.com>

hi all,

asking here councilors, we should propose some topics for those joint
meetings. if someone proposes a topic, s/he is supposed to prepare and
provide speaking points.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: 2017-10-16 22:24 GMT+09:00
Subject: [council] Your input requested - topics and owners for joint
sessions at ICANN60
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>


Dear All,



As discussed during last week?s Council meeting, staff has gone ahead and
created wiki pages for each of the joint sessions at ICANN60 (with ccNSO,
GAC and ICANN Board). You are requested to review these pages, identify
whether there are any topics that need to be added and/or edited, and
identify for which topics you would like to serve as a topic owner. As a
topic owner, you are requested to provide a number of proposed speaking
points that will allow others to review and contribute to. You can find the
wiki pages here:



Joint meeting with the ccNSO: https://community.icann.org/x/DCMhB



Joint meeting with the GAC: https://community.icann.org/x/-JNEB



Joint meeting with the ICANN Board: https://community.icann.org/x/BZREB



Thank you for your collaboration.



Best regards,



Marika



*Marika Konings*

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

*Email: marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org>  *



*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*

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



_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171017/cbf42b78/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Oct 17 14:41:38 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:41:38 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <3c3e8fef-848f-0a90-e374-8ddc0d41b9e5@mpicc.de>
 <266802285.1501028.1507931876177@mail.yahoo.com>
 <Qm2P2d43GZtF9engfkdzt8ZC-gzNmvdpEVmRdrRT2bKYeZMG9FH0ae37QuUD5-kGzYyaIbrrvLJIwuTGtbx4MF3ii0wF4dZTzvDhKWvpUiE=@ferdeline.com>
 <942023A1-70BD-4620-8B11-D6D803AACDF7@gmail.com>
 <aa43f8d1-8a9c-4478-2f3b-e7a54ca7559d@intpolicy.com>
 <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20171017114138.rugelny4vsvumkwc@tarvainen.info>

Dear PC members,

Unless I've missed something we've got support for Rafik so far from

Poncelet, Matthew, Martin, Ayden, Juan, Tatiana

as well as myself (and Rafik - I did ask him in advance).

That does make a majority and there's been no opposition, but
seeing the dearth of our elected councillors there I can't help
suspecting you've missed the call, so I'll wait a bit more
to give you a chance to weigh in.

Tapani

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:25:18AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
> for the council ASAP.
> 
> Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
> 
> If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
> they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
> be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Oct 17 16:03:01 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:03:01 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <20171017114138.rugelny4vsvumkwc@tarvainen.info>
References: <20171017114138.rugelny4vsvumkwc@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <b49cadb1-6dbc-5fac-0218-643387d81439@mail.utoronto.ca>

you forgot me.

SP


On 2017-10-17 07:41, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Dear PC members,
>
> Unless I've missed something we've got support for Rafik so far from
>
> Poncelet, Matthew, Martin, Ayden, Juan, Tatiana
>
> as well as myself (and Rafik - I did ask him in advance).
>
> That does make a majority and there's been no opposition, but
> seeing the dearth of our elected councillors there I can't help
> suspecting you've missed the call, so I'll wait a bit more
> to give you a chance to weigh in.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:25:18AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
>> for the council ASAP.
>>
>> Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
>>
>> If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
>> they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
>> be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
>>
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171017/d5f5b087/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Oct 17 16:11:44 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:11:44 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <b49cadb1-6dbc-5fac-0218-643387d81439@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <20171017114138.rugelny4vsvumkwc@tarvainen.info>
 <b49cadb1-6dbc-5fac-0218-643387d81439@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20171017131144.2m36tmee63fesaqd@tarvainen.info>

Hi Stephanie,

Apologies, but I still can't see earlier reply from you. You did
support Rafik for *Chair* earlier, but this is different: now we're
following the script in the Vice Chair election process (just trying
to play it by the book as it were, as CSG asked for formal
nomination from us).

But your support is now noted, thank you.

Tapani

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:03:01AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> 
> you forgot me.
> 
> SP
> 
> 
> On 2017-10-17 07:41, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Dear PC members,
> > 
> > Unless I've missed something we've got support for Rafik so far from
> > 
> > Poncelet, Matthew, Martin, Ayden, Juan, Tatiana
> > 
> > as well as myself (and Rafik - I did ask him in advance).
> > 
> > That does make a majority and there's been no opposition, but
> > seeing the dearth of our elected councillors there I can't help
> > suspecting you've missed the call, so I'll wait a bit more
> > to give you a chance to weigh in.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:25:18AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > > 
> > > CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
> > > for the council ASAP.
> > > 
> > > Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
> > > 
> > > If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
> > > they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
> > > be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Tapani Tarvainen
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> 

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


-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Oct 17 16:58:06 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:58:06 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <20171017131144.2m36tmee63fesaqd@tarvainen.info>
References: <20171017114138.rugelny4vsvumkwc@tarvainen.info>
 <b49cadb1-6dbc-5fac-0218-643387d81439@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <20171017131144.2m36tmee63fesaqd@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <d79a5278-91af-4405-434b-28e74b208891@mail.utoronto.ca>

Sorry Tapani, I think it may have been imbedded in discussion on 
strategy....I should have sent another email....

SP


On 2017-10-17 09:11, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Apologies, but I still can't see earlier reply from you. You did
> support Rafik for *Chair* earlier, but this is different: now we're
> following the script in the Vice Chair election process (just trying
> to play it by the book as it were, as CSG asked for formal
> nomination from us).
>
> But your support is now noted, thank you.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:03:01AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>> you forgot me.
>>
>> SP
>>
>>
>> On 2017-10-17 07:41, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>> Dear PC members,
>>>
>>> Unless I've missed something we've got support for Rafik so far from
>>>
>>> Poncelet, Matthew, Martin, Ayden, Juan, Tatiana
>>>
>>> as well as myself (and Rafik - I did ask him in advance).
>>>
>>> That does make a majority and there's been no opposition, but
>>> seeing the dearth of our elected councillors there I can't help
>>> suspecting you've missed the call, so I'll wait a bit more
>>> to give you a chance to weigh in.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:25:18AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
>>>> for the council ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
>>>>
>>>> If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
>>>> they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
>>>> be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171017/0833eb4d/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Oct 18 09:00:23 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:00:23 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Vice Chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <20171017114138.rugelny4vsvumkwc@tarvainen.info>
References: <3c3e8fef-848f-0a90-e374-8ddc0d41b9e5@mpicc.de>
 <266802285.1501028.1507931876177@mail.yahoo.com>
 <Qm2P2d43GZtF9engfkdzt8ZC-gzNmvdpEVmRdrRT2bKYeZMG9FH0ae37QuUD5-kGzYyaIbrrvLJIwuTGtbx4MF3ii0wF4dZTzvDhKWvpUiE=@ferdeline.com>
 <942023A1-70BD-4620-8B11-D6D803AACDF7@gmail.com>
 <aa43f8d1-8a9c-4478-2f3b-e7a54ca7559d@intpolicy.com>
 <CAEux40uH9DkG6vzKsufAwsR0R0WBySk-Gw-pKFWLCL5bPVv3Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171013082518.nqcam5gee23tsrf7@tarvainen.info>
 <20171017114138.rugelny4vsvumkwc@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20171018060023.svtrk2kjeype7cwz@tarvainen.info>

OK, adding Stephanie to the list we have 9/11 in favour and
no objections in five days. Good enough.

I'll let CSG know we're nominating Rafik for the position.

Tapani

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 02:41:38PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> 
> Dear PC members,
> 
> Unless I've missed something we've got support for Rafik so far from
> 
> Poncelet, Matthew, Martin, Ayden, Juan, Tatiana
> 
> as well as myself (and Rafik - I did ask him in advance).
> 
> That does make a majority and there's been no opposition, but
> seeing the dearth of our elected councillors there I can't help
> suspecting you've missed the call, so I'll wait a bit more
> to give you a chance to weigh in.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:25:18AM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > CSG approached me asking us to nominate our Vice Chair candidate
> > for the council ASAP.
> > 
> > Based on earlier discussion I propose we nominate Rafik.
> > 
> > If we get a consensus on that quickly I can notify CSG and then
> > they'll probably want to set up a call to interview him, but it should
> > be possible to get it all done and decided before Abu Dhabi.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tapani Tarvainen


From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Oct 19 15:59:08 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:59:08 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Letter
Message-ID: <pYpVOVNbkyTnnD1XQi0DsWckwnZElIbzZr6ddmeaKhvbtkR-UZBAt0tFhG2Q4_2gcoc9atAsyOp8RY4fCZBCW23bFUbIm4ScDOs5xgiXxrQ=@ferdeline.com>

Please find attached the latest version of the letter to ICANN re: GDPR. I have accepted all of the requested changes, even reluctantly (very reluctantly) deleting the final paragraph. I hope we can submit this today. Thank you.

Best wishes, Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171019/c8f7c4b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG PC Letter to ICANN re- GDPR.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171019/c8f7c4b5/attachment.pdf>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Thu Oct 19 16:02:47 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:02:47 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Letter
In-Reply-To: <pYpVOVNbkyTnnD1XQi0DsWckwnZElIbzZr6ddmeaKhvbtkR-UZBAt0tFhG2Q4_2gcoc9atAsyOp8RY4fCZBCW23bFUbIm4ScDOs5xgiXxrQ=@ferdeline.com>
References: <pYpVOVNbkyTnnD1XQi0DsWckwnZElIbzZr6ddmeaKhvbtkR-UZBAt0tFhG2Q4_2gcoc9atAsyOp8RY4fCZBCW23bFUbIm4ScDOs5xgiXxrQ=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <20171019130247.enyrpa7ly4hlxodb@tarvainen.info>

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 08:59:08AM -0400, Ayden F?rdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:
> 
> Please find attached the latest version of the letter to ICANN re: GDPR. I have accepted all of the requested changes, even reluctantly (very reluctantly) deleting the final paragraph. I hope we can submit this today. Thank you.
> 
> Best wishes, Ayden

Looks good enough to me.

(My apologies for not participating in the discussion, I've been rather
overwhelmed by some non-NCSG related events in my life.)


-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Oct 19 16:20:59 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:20:59 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Letter
In-Reply-To: <pYpVOVNbkyTnnD1XQi0DsWckwnZElIbzZr6ddmeaKhvbtkR-UZBAt0tFhG2Q4_2gcoc9atAsyOp8RY4fCZBCW23bFUbIm4ScDOs5xgiXxrQ=@ferdeline.com>
References: <pYpVOVNbkyTnnD1XQi0DsWckwnZElIbzZr6ddmeaKhvbtkR-UZBAt0tFhG2Q4_2gcoc9atAsyOp8RY4fCZBCW23bFUbIm4ScDOs5xgiXxrQ=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnud8x3XUbCe431Gzn3k7fExu6uqLAqHZB=61VwM5U95w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

Thanks for the work done and I appreciate the efforts made to accommodate
the feedback.the letter was under review over one week and everyone had
chance to participate.

Unless I hear a strong objection, I will send the letter by today 23:59 UTC
(Friday 8:59am JST )

Best,

Rafik

On Oct 19, 2017 9:59 PM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

Please find attached the latest version of the letter to ICANN re: GDPR. I
have accepted all of the requested changes, even reluctantly (very
reluctantly) deleting the final paragraph. I hope we can submit this today.
Thank you.

Best wishes, Ayden

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171019/b1b23136/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Thu Oct 19 17:38:43 2017
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:38:43 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Letter
In-Reply-To: <pYpVOVNbkyTnnD1XQi0DsWckwnZElIbzZr6ddmeaKhvbtkR-UZBAt0tFhG2Q4_2gcoc9atAsyOp8RY4fCZBCW23bFUbIm4ScDOs5xgiXxrQ=@ferdeline.com>
References: <pYpVOVNbkyTnnD1XQi0DsWckwnZElIbzZr6ddmeaKhvbtkR-UZBAt0tFhG2Q4_2gcoc9atAsyOp8RY4fCZBCW23bFUbIm4ScDOs5xgiXxrQ=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <ae4a0b0b-5253-ec4f-e70f-d7b90e53a860@mpicc.de>

Ayden,

thank you very much. I know you have a very strong opinion expressed in
the last paragraph (deleted now) and I appreciate that you agreed to
accommodate our thoughts and agreed to discuss the possible actions
later if necessary. Great job -- and I fully support the current text.
Thank a lot for drafting it.

Cheers,

Tanya


On 19/10/17 14:59, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Please find attached the latest version of the letter to ICANN re:
> GDPR. I have accepted all of the requested changes, even reluctantly
> (very reluctantly) deleting the final paragraph. I hope we can submit
> this today. Thank you.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171019/41c109cc/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Thu Oct 19 18:08:39 2017
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:08:39 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Letter
In-Reply-To: <ae4a0b0b-5253-ec4f-e70f-d7b90e53a860@mpicc.de>
References: <pYpVOVNbkyTnnD1XQi0DsWckwnZElIbzZr6ddmeaKhvbtkR-UZBAt0tFhG2Q4_2gcoc9atAsyOp8RY4fCZBCW23bFUbIm4ScDOs5xgiXxrQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <ae4a0b0b-5253-ec4f-e70f-d7b90e53a860@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tGJ-g-xyQXaPR9LyVSBkMV+Yd2h4O81e6DJdj-LiewJA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ayden,

Thanks alot, much appreciated, for this final text, +1.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 19 October 2017 at 14:38, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:

> Ayden,
>
> thank you very much. I know you have a very strong opinion expressed in
> the last paragraph (deleted now) and I appreciate that you agreed to
> accommodate our thoughts and agreed to discuss the possible actions later
> if necessary. Great job -- and I fully support the current text. Thank a
> lot for drafting it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 19/10/17 14:59, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> Please find attached the latest version of the letter to ICANN re: GDPR. I
> have accepted all of the requested changes, even reluctantly (very
> reluctantly) deleting the final paragraph. I hope we can submit this today.
> Thank you.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171019/dd52d93f/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Oct 25 02:13:34 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:13:34 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Community Travel Suport Consultation and
	Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <D827A03A-BBC9-4C69-BD03-26D9BFE143E3@icann.org>
References: <D827A03A-BBC9-4C69-BD03-26D9BFE143E3@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmjW1GHjQfRO3fQCH0KBKjX0x3KOBs84_OaOqHRi29XHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

this is a reminder about the questionnaire we agreed to respond to. I think
Tatiana and Ayden volunteered to work in the first draft comment.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
Date: 2017-10-25 7:12 GMT+09:00
Subject: [council] Community Travel Suport Consultation and Questionnaire
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>


Dear councilors,



During the GNSO Council meeting on the 12 October 2017, Patrick Jones and
Carlos Reyes, ICANN staff, presented to the Council the community travel
support guidelines, and explained the need for community input.



Attached to this email, on the last page, is the questionnaire mentioned
during the call to be circulated to community members to gather input. The
deadline at which to submit responses is the 17 November 2017.



Thank you,



Kind regards,



Nathalie





Nathalie Peregrine

Manager, Operations Support (GNSO)

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
<http://nathalie.peregrine at icann.org%20>

Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann



Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting
the GNSO Newcomer pages
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EHtoX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=>







_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171025/70925bf8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Community Travel Support Consultation and Questionnaire.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 748373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171025/70925bf8/attachment.pdf>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Oct 26 02:42:16 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:42:16 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Community Travel Suport Consultation
	and Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmjW1GHjQfRO3fQCH0KBKjX0x3KOBs84_OaOqHRi29XHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D827A03A-BBC9-4C69-BD03-26D9BFE143E3@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThmjW1GHjQfRO3fQCH0KBKjX0x3KOBs84_OaOqHRi29XHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <IZw4EHpCSZKg_8dlom6ynP8otsDj1ebXTY8B2lQTFMcJN33C6IvqqrgO-sxpYmuqGI9Q87LxDSpDMQqx4jQqCUcRhnySjj5Y7c3BE9slnVc=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

I will be responding to this questionnaire in my personal capacity; I am not looking to draft an NCSG response. It is not clear to me what views our members hold on this issue, and frankly I have neither the time nor motivation to find out. On the last PC call I expressed my position and there was grumbling in the chat from a new member. This isn?t a critical issue for us (in my opinion) and it isn?t something which we need to invest a huge body of effort into responding to and developing an internal consensus position on, unlike, say, responding to the reserve funds comment.

Best wishes,

Ayden F?rdeline
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:13 am, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> this is a reminder about the questionnaire we agreed to respond to. I think Tatiana and Ayden volunteered to work in the first draft comment.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> Date: 2017-10-25 7:12 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [council] Community Travel Suport Consultation and Questionnaire
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
> Dear councilors,
>
> During the GNSO Council meeting on the 12 October 2017, Patrick Jones and Carlos Reyes, ICANN staff, presented to the Council the community travel support guidelines, and explained the need for community input.
>
> Attached to this email, on the last page, is the questionnaire mentioned during the call to be circulated to community members to gather input. The deadline at which to submit responses is the 17 November 2017.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nathalie
>
> Nathalie Peregrine
>
> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO)
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Email: [nathalie.peregrine at icann.org ](http://nathalie.peregrine at icann.org%20)
>
> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann
>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EHtoX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=)
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171025/0bc11bd3/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Oct 26 02:53:13 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:53:13 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Community Travel Suport Consultation
	and Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <IZw4EHpCSZKg_8dlom6ynP8otsDj1ebXTY8B2lQTFMcJN33C6IvqqrgO-sxpYmuqGI9Q87LxDSpDMQqx4jQqCUcRhnySjj5Y7c3BE9slnVc=@ferdeline.com>
References: <D827A03A-BBC9-4C69-BD03-26D9BFE143E3@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThmjW1GHjQfRO3fQCH0KBKjX0x3KOBs84_OaOqHRi29XHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <IZw4EHpCSZKg_8dlom6ynP8otsDj1ebXTY8B2lQTFMcJN33C6IvqqrgO-sxpYmuqGI9Q87LxDSpDMQqx4jQqCUcRhnySjj5Y7c3BE9slnVc=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThks+ysfciEMD6SoY8spGs2D09HF2PpW1Nt7Gt5jSprtZg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ,

Thanks, Ayden.
I guess Tatiana can work on the draft comment then and we circulate it
later to wider membership to get the feedback. I do believe that we need to
respond since they are asking SO/AC/SG/C input in first place. of course,
that doesn't prevent any individual comment.

for other public comments (4 of interest for us currently), I circulated a
call for volunteers few times and got few who expressed interests. they are
quite a newbie to comment drafting and needs support.  I will help that
to start that at least to start the drafting.
For the trust fund, I don't recall getting anyone volunteering expressly
for that one, so anyone from PC wants to take the lead here? I do believe
it is quite critical for us to respond and with PTI budget, they are both
the most urgent ones.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-26 8:42 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi,
>
> I will be responding to this questionnaire in my personal capacity; I am
> not looking to draft an NCSG response. It is not clear to me what views
> our members hold on this issue, and frankly I have neither the time nor
> motivation to find out. On the last PC call I expressed my position and
> there was grumbling in the chat from a new member. This isn?t a critical
> issue for us (in my opinion) and it isn?t something which we need to invest
> a huge body of effort into responding to and developing an internal
> consensus position on, unlike, say, responding to the reserve funds comment.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:13 am, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is a reminder about the questionnaire we agreed to respond to. I
> think Tatiana and Ayden volunteered to work in the first draft comment.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> Date: 2017-10-25 7:12 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [council] Community Travel Suport Consultation and Questionnaire
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
> Dear councilors,
>
>
>
> During the GNSO Council meeting on the 12 October 2017, Patrick Jones and
> Carlos Reyes, ICANN staff, presented to the Council the community travel
> support guidelines, and explained the need for community input.
>
>
>
> Attached to this email, on the last page, is the questionnaire mentioned
> during the call to be circulated to community members to gather input. The
> deadline at which to submit responses is the 17 November 2017.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Nathalie
>
>
>
>
>
> Nathalie Peregrine
>
> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO)
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
> <http://nathalie.peregrine at icann.org%20>
>
> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann
>
>
>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EHtoX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171026/327a29bd/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Thu Oct 26 03:03:48 2017
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:03:48 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Community Travel Suport Consultation
	and Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThks+ysfciEMD6SoY8spGs2D09HF2PpW1Nt7Gt5jSprtZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D827A03A-BBC9-4C69-BD03-26D9BFE143E3@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThmjW1GHjQfRO3fQCH0KBKjX0x3KOBs84_OaOqHRi29XHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <IZw4EHpCSZKg_8dlom6ynP8otsDj1ebXTY8B2lQTFMcJN33C6IvqqrgO-sxpYmuqGI9Q87LxDSpDMQqx4jQqCUcRhnySjj5Y7c3BE9slnVc=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThks+ysfciEMD6SoY8spGs2D09HF2PpW1Nt7Gt5jSprtZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvAWGy6wrCn96cGRHS__ymaGAn--D5zEXc5b42UifSjGbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Observer  here and sorry i cant be silent anymore

I think its a disgrace that some councillors  are so silent on issues. We
have not heard a word from them for ages on various issues and they are
still coming to Abu Dhabi. I wonder what they want to do there. Will they
attend NCSG sessions? Do they feel they are a part of ncsg at all? It
doesnt matter if it?s the end of your term. People voted for you to serve.
And frankly some of you didn?t.

Probably my email is useless since  it seems like for some reading ncsg pc
emails is not necessary. Cant wait for the new councillors to come along to
bring some passion and devotion.

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 7:53 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi ,
>
> Thanks, Ayden.
> I guess Tatiana can work on the draft comment then and we circulate it
> later to wider membership to get the feedback. I do believe that we need to
> respond since they are asking SO/AC/SG/C input in first place. of course,
> that doesn't prevent any individual comment.
>
> for other public comments (4 of interest for us currently), I circulated a
> call for volunteers few times and got few who expressed interests. they are
> quite a newbie to comment drafting and needs support.  I will help that
> to start that at least to start the drafting.
> For the trust fund, I don't recall getting anyone volunteering expressly
> for that one, so anyone from PC wants to take the lead here? I do believe
> it is quite critical for us to respond and with PTI budget, they are both
> the most urgent ones.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2017-10-26 8:42 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I will be responding to this questionnaire in my personal capacity; I am
>> not looking to draft an NCSG response. It is not clear to me what views
>> our members hold on this issue, and frankly I have neither the time nor
>> motivation to find out. On the last PC call I expressed my position and
>> there was grumbling in the chat from a new member. This isn?t a critical
>> issue for us (in my opinion) and it isn?t something which we need to invest
>> a huge body of effort into responding to and developing an internal
>> consensus position on, unlike, say, responding to the reserve funds comment.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:13 am, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is a reminder about the questionnaire we agreed to respond to. I
>> think Tatiana and Ayden volunteered to work in the first draft comment.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>> Date: 2017-10-25 7:12 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [council] Community Travel Suport Consultation and Questionnaire
>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear councilors,
>>
>>
>>
>> During the GNSO Council meeting on the 12 October 2017, Patrick Jones and
>> Carlos Reyes, ICANN staff, presented to the Council the community travel
>> support guidelines, and explained the need for community input.
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached to this email, on the last page, is the questionnaire mentioned
>> during the call to be circulated to community members to gather input. The
>> deadline at which to submit responses is the 17 November 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nathalie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nathalie Peregrine
>>
>> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO)
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>> <http://nathalie.peregrine at icann.org%20>
>>
>> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann
>>
>>
>>
>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
>> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EHtoX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________ _________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171026/5d9820fd/attachment.htm>

From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org  Fri Oct 27 10:27:18 2017
From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 07:27:18 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Dial in details for NCSG Excom,
 NCSG Policy Committee and assigned Board members - ICANN60
Message-ID: <0E896709-C0BC-46EA-8629-A2DAA9433781@icann.org>

Dear All,


Wednesday 01 November 2017: NCSG Excom, NCSG Policy Committee and assigned Board members

Room: Hall 4

Time: 11:00 ? 12:00 local time (GST)

PC: NCSG BOARD

AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hall4-c



Dial in numbers:

Country





Toll Numbers


Freephone/
Toll Free Number




ARGENTINA








0800-777-0519


AUSTRALIA


ADELAIDE:


61-8-8121-4842


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


BRISBANE:


61-7-3102-0944


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


CANBERRA:


61-2-6100-1944


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


MELBOURNE:


61-3-9010-7713


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


PERTH:


61-8-9467-5223


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


SYDNEY:


61-2-8205-8129


1-800-657-260


AUSTRIA





43-1-92-81-113


0800-005-259


BELGIUM





32-2-400-9861


0800-3-8795


BRAZIL


RIO DE JANEIRO:


55-21-40421490


0800-7610651


BRAZIL


SAO PAULO:


55-11-3958-0779


0800-7610651


CHILE








1230-020-2863


CHINA


CHINA A:


86-400-810-4789


10800-712-1670


CHINA


CHINA B:


86-400-810-4789


10800-120-1670


COLOMBIA








01800-9-156474


CROATIA








080-08-06-309


CZECH REPUBLIC





420-2-25-98-56-64


800-700-177


DENMARK





45-7014-0284


8088-8324


EGYPT








0800000-9029


ESTONIA








800-011-1093


FINLAND





358-9-5424-7162


0-800-9-14610


FRANCE


LYON:


33-4-26-69-12-85


080-511-1496


FRANCE


MARSEILLE:


33-4-86-06-00-85


080-511-1496


FRANCE


PARIS:


33-1-70-70-60-72


080-511-1496


GERMANY





49-69-2222-20362


0800-664-4247


GREECE





30-80-1-100-0687


00800-12-7312


HONG KONG





852-3001-3863


800-962-856


HUNGARY





36-1-700-8856


06-800-12755


INDIA


INDIA A:





000-800-852-1268


INDIA


INDIA B:





000-800-001-6305


INDIA


INDIA C:





1800-300-00491


INDONESIA








001-803-011-3982


IRELAND





353-1-246-7646


1800-992-368


ISRAEL








1-80-9216162


ITALY


MILAN:


39-02-3600-6007


800-986-383


ITALY


ROME:


39-06-8751-6018


800-986-383


ITALY


TORINO:


39-011-510-0118


800-986-383


JAPAN


OSAKA:


81-6-7878-2631


0066-33-132439


JAPAN


TOKYO:


81-3-6868-2631


0066-33-132439


LATVIA








8000-3185


LUXEMBOURG





352-27-000-1364


8002-9246


MALAYSIA








1-800-81-3065


MEXICO


GUADALAJARA (JAL):


52-33-3208-7310


001-866-376-9696


MEXICO


MEXICO CITY:


52-55-5062-9110


001-866-376-9696


MEXICO


MONTERREY:


52-81-2482-0610


001-866-376-9696


NETHERLANDS





31-20-718-8588


0800-023-4378


NEW ZEALAND





64-9-970-4771


0800-447-722


NORWAY





47-21-590-062


800-15157


PANAMA








011-001-800-5072065


PERU








0800-53713


PHILIPPINES





63-2-858-3716


1800-111-42453


POLAND








00-800-1212572


PORTUGAL





351-2-10054705


8008-14052


ROMANIA





40-31-630-01-79


RUSSIA








8-10-8002-0144011


SAUDI ARABIA








800-8-110087


SINGAPORE





65-6883-9230


800-120-4663


SLOVAK REPUBLIC





421-2-322-422-25


0800-002066


SOUTH AFRICA








080-09-80414


SOUTH KOREA





82-2-6744-1083


00798-14800-7352


SPAIN





34-91-414-25-33


800-300-053


SWEDEN





46-8-566-19-348


0200-884-622


SWITZERLAND





41-44-580-6398


0800-120-032


TAIWAN





886-2-2795-7379


00801-137-797


THAILAND








001-800-1206-66056


TURKEY








00-800-151-0516


UNITED ARAB EMIRATES








8000-35702370


UNITED KINGDOM


BIRMINGHAM:


44-121-210-9025


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


GLASGOW:


44-141-202-3225


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


LEEDS:


44-113-301-2125


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


LONDON:


44-20-7108-6370


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


MANCHESTER:


44-161-601-1425


0808-238-6029


URUGUAY








000-413-598-3421


USA





1-517-345-9004


866-692-5726


VENEZUELA








0800-1-00-3702


VIETNAM








120-11751



--
Many thanks,

Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7737698036

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171027/f953c0b9/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Oct 29 08:43:07 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 15:43:07 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed at
NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.

I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to replace
NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting in
Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.

as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 17:00.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171029/db4ac6f3/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Oct 29 09:22:22 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 03:22:22 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c5a98d7c-4f1e-1b78-f77f-2678886a84e0@mail.utoronto.ca>

excellent statement.

Stephanie


On 2017-10-29 02:43, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, there?was a statement on content regulation discussed 
> at NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG?statement 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit>. 
>
>
> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as 
> NCSG comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit 
> to replace NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within 
> ICANN meeting in Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at 
> NCUC level.
>
> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 
> 17:00.
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171029/56e216dd/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Oct 29 09:28:35 2017
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 03:28:35 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <c5a98d7c-4f1e-1b78-f77f-2678886a84e0@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <c5a98d7c-4f1e-1b78-f77f-2678886a84e0@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5B-erpGfu2nNZt5R_2jlT3EBI9KFtGGw58edlSd5Zd304LfZfV4u2lTrA-y7K8Zy5s9tSI4qEku9Lj6MAiRgpIm1nVjpj5X4mJNKYQEw6Do=@ferdeline.com>

I also support its submission, with the minor edit of changing 'NCUC' to 'NCSG' in the heading.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
> Local Time: 29 October 2017 7:22 AM
> UTC Time: 29 October 2017 07:22
> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>
> excellent statement.
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-10-29 02:43, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed at NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
>>
>> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to replace NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting in Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>>
>> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 17:00.
>>
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171029/c38b4d61/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Sun Oct 29 09:33:55 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:33:55 +0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>

Fine by me.

Tapani

On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed at
> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
> 
> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to replace
> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting in
> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
> 
> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 17:00.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik


From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Sun Oct 29 11:15:56 2017
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 13:15:56 +0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>

I support the statement, I even think we could go a little further and mention the cases we see are live  and concerning us, like the alternative methods of right protections mechanism  that some registries/registrar are implementing in new gTLDs, creating whole mechanism of content control over DNS layer (should the be free to do it?).

But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in NCUC and I think is good.

Cheers,
Martin

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Fine by me.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed at
>> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
>> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
>> 
>> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
>> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to replace
>> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting in
>> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>> 
>> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 17:00.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Oct 29 14:02:24 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:02:24 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:

> I support the statement, I even think we could go a little further and
> mention the cases we see are live  and concerning us, like the alternative
> methods of right protections mechanism  that some registries/registrar are
> implementing in new gTLDs, creating whole mechanism of content control over
> DNS layer (should the be free to do it?).
>
> But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in NCUC and I
> think is good.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> > On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> >
> > Fine by me.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed
> at
> >> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
> >> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
> >>
> >> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
> >> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to
> replace
> >> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting
> in
> >> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
> >>
> >> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at
> 17:00.
> >>
> >> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171029/68b519cd/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Sun Oct 29 14:16:09 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:16:09 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>,
 <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0502MB36108ED493C3BBC63CD3497EF7580@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I have requested from whoever owns the document the right to make suggestions directly there.
My email address (for Google docs only) is st3f1u at gmail.com.


________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Inviato: domenica 29 ottobre 2017 13:02:24
A: Martin Pablo Silva Valent
Cc: ncsg-pc
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation

Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>:
I support the statement, I even think we could go a little further and mention the cases we see are live  and concerning us, like the alternative methods of right protections mechanism  that some registries/registrar are implementing in new gTLDs, creating whole mechanism of content control over DNS layer (should the be free to do it?).

But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in NCUC and I think is good.

Cheers,
Martin

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>
> Fine by me.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed at
>> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
>> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
>>
>> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
>> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to replace
>> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting in
>> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>>
>> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 17:00.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

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


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


From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Sun Oct 29 14:21:13 2017
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:21:13 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1918842892.6340652.1509279673578@mail.yahoo.com>

Dear all,?I have read this statement and I support it. I think is very clear and get directly to the main point.? Maybe we could propose a definition of what the statement is talking about??
Best regards,
JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?ColombiaCommunications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANNCluster Orinoco TIC memberMaster IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
Cel. +57 3017435600
Twitter:?@JmanuRojas





? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

    El domingo, 29 de octubre de 2017 7:02:54 a. m. GMT-5, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> escribi?:  
 
 Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.
Best,
Rafik

2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:

I support the statement, I even think we could go a little further and mention the cases we see are live? and concerning us, like the alternative methods of right protections mechanism? that some registries/registrar are implementing in new gTLDs, creating whole mechanism of content control over DNS layer (should the be free to do it?).

But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in NCUC and I think is good.

Cheers,
Martin

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
> Fine by me.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed at
>> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
>> https://docs.google.com/docume nt/d/1voPCb3EIi__
>> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dO Ko/edit.
>>
>> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
>> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to replace
>> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting in
>> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>>
>> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 17:00.
>>
>> 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


_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171029/0ea6b647/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Mon Oct 30 10:58:11 2017
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:58:11 +0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dcf04de6-1d79-34a5-d5ff-0b52de8742f0@mpicc.de>

Support from me.

Tanya


On 29/10/17 16:02, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>:
>
>     I support the statement, I even think we could go a little further
>     and mention the cases we see are live  and concerning us, like the
>     alternative methods of right protections mechanism  that some
>     registries/registrar are implementing in new gTLDs, creating whole
>     mechanism of content control over DNS layer (should the be free to
>     do it?).
>
>     But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in
>     NCUC and I think is good.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Martin
>
>     > On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen
>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     > Fine by me.
>     >
>     > Tapani
>     >
>     > On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi all,
>     >>
>     >> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation
>     discussed at
>     >> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
>     >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__>
>     >> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
>     >>
>     >> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed
>     as NCSG
>     >> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small
>     edit to replace
>     >> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN
>     meeting in
>     >> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>     >>
>     >> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this
>     afternoon at 17:00.
>     >>
>     >> Best,
>     >>
>     >> Rafik
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > NCSG-PC mailing list
>     > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171030/2d2c02c3/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Oct 30 11:00:52 2017
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 05:00:52 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <dcf04de6-1d79-34a5-d5ff-0b52de8742f0@mpicc.de>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <dcf04de6-1d79-34a5-d5ff-0b52de8742f0@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <c0b82514-37f8-dffe-579e-adbaeebf7339@mail.utoronto.ca>

Once again, I support the statement.

Stephanie


On 2017-10-30 04:58, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>
> Support from me.
>
> Tanya
>
>
> On 29/10/17 16:02, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent 
>> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     I support the statement, I even think we could go a little
>>     further and mention the cases we see are live? and concerning us,
>>     like the alternative methods of right protections mechanism? that
>>     some registries/registrar are implementing in new gTLDs, creating
>>     whole mechanism of content control over DNS layer (should the be
>>     free to do it?).
>>
>>     But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in
>>     NCUC and I think is good.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Martin
>>
>>     > On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen
>>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
>>     wrote:
>>     >
>>     > Fine by me.
>>     >
>>     > Tapani
>>     >
>>     > On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >> Hi all,
>>     >>
>>     >> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation
>>     discussed at
>>     >> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
>>     >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__>
>>     >> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
>>     >>
>>     >> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it
>>     endorsed as NCSG
>>     >> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small
>>     edit to replace
>>     >> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN
>>     meeting in
>>     >> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>>     >>
>>     >> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this
>>     afternoon at 17:00.
>>     >>
>>     >> Best,
>>     >>
>>     >> Rafik
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > NCSG-PC mailing list
>>     > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>     > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171030/fae75302/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Oct 30 11:09:21 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:09:21 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmBemdY-3DebtFtTiS3tY1T0PzHRMUWdt17SUCd-wbWsQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi James,

(PC list in cc)

I am reaching you because we had yesterday discussion at GNSO working
session and then NCSG Policy meeting about the board letter regarding
suspending SSR2.

there was a consensus that we should reach you as you are the
representative to the review team to get more information from you on the
status of work there and what kind of issues there.

as we only found out about the letter and SSAC advice in the last 2 days,
we have little idea about the current state. any update from you will be
really helpful. it is clear that there is concern about the process and the
possible involvement of board but we are trying to get the full picture to
work on common NCSG position on the matter.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171030/5656b577/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Oct 30 11:10:49 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:10:49 +0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <c0b82514-37f8-dffe-579e-adbaeebf7339@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <dcf04de6-1d79-34a5-d5ff-0b52de8742f0@mpicc.de>
 <c0b82514-37f8-dffe-579e-adbaeebf7339@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <0BC684C1-AD63-4D6F-84A6-FE606597E211@tapani.tarvainen.info>

+1

On 30 October 2017 13.00.52 GMT+04:00, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>Once again, I support the statement.
>
>Stephanie
>
>
>On 2017-10-30 04:58, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>>
>> Support from me.
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>>
>> On 29/10/17 16:02, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent 
>>> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>>     I support the statement, I even think we could go a little
>>>     further and mention the cases we see are live? and concerning
>us,
>>>     like the alternative methods of right protections mechanism?
>that
>>>     some registries/registrar are implementing in new gTLDs,
>creating
>>>     whole mechanism of content control over DNS layer (should the be
>>>     free to do it?).
>>>
>>>     But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in
>>>     NCUC and I think is good.
>>>
>>>     Cheers,
>>>     Martin
>>>
>>>     > On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen
>>>     <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
>>>     wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > Fine by me.
>>>     >
>>>     > Tapani
>>>     >
>>>     > On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Hi all,
>>>     >>
>>>     >> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation
>>>     discussed at
>>>     >> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG
>statement
>>>     >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
>>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__>
>>>     >> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it
>>>     endorsed as NCSG
>>>     >> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small
>>>     edit to replace
>>>     >> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within
>ICANN
>>>     meeting in
>>>     >> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this
>>>     afternoon at 17:00.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Best,
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Rafik
>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>     > NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>     > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>     > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

Tapani Tarvainen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171030/25a5be83/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Mon Oct 30 11:27:32 2017
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:27:32 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmBemdY-3DebtFtTiS3tY1T0PzHRMUWdt17SUCd-wbWsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmBemdY-3DebtFtTiS3tY1T0PzHRMUWdt17SUCd-wbWsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWpo3Ne4=KB_B=c39-ByBwrbBvuzrapRkFDBXXKEaG3BVg@mail.gmail.com>

(observer)

Hi Rafik,

Thanks for your email which states the issue. Please consider my comments
bellow as personal reflections and i stand to be corrected on my judgements.

The question is being discussed now at the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting and
there are, imo, multiple views with regards to this question. GNSO Chair is
one of the people who are surprised about the decision that came in (like
only 24hours) from a meeting between the Board and ASO/AC leaders (that
happened on Friday). ccNSO Chair seems to say that they were aware of a
possible decision by the Board which was presented during Friday's meeting
but Heather (who was serving as proxy for James) seemed not to have heard
the same.

James, we would like to hear from you (as our rep there) on what you think
were the issues that the review team were facing, mostly on the scope of
work as it appears to be one of the main reasons that led the Board to act
that way. I asked on Twitter and someone replied with the following:
"According to SSAC, #SSR2 <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2> realized
they needed a scoping document before finding reviewers", can you tell us
more about this if it is true? It appears that you were not consulted and
only were informed of the decision to pause your work? What can you share
with us on that note? What is the feeling of your collegues in that group
about this? What are you planning to do?

I have tried to put here all ideas i have though i have limited knowledge
about this specific review work and would appreciate to hear your thoughts
on this. Please do share anything you think the NCSG can help with.

Thank you,
Arsene

------------------------
**Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
& Mexico
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
- AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>
). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius
<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>)*
- *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet
Freedom.

Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)

2017-10-30 11:09 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi James,
>
> (PC list in cc)
>
> I am reaching you because we had yesterday discussion at GNSO working
> session and then NCSG Policy meeting about the board letter regarding
> suspending SSR2.
>
> there was a consensus that we should reach you as you are the
> representative to the review team to get more information from you on the
> status of work there and what kind of issues there.
>
> as we only found out about the letter and SSAC advice in the last 2 days,
> we have little idea about the current state. any update from you will be
> really helpful. it is clear that there is concern about the process and the
> possible involvement of board but we are trying to get the full picture to
> work on common NCSG position on the matter.
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171030/73604c5b/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Mon Oct 30 15:21:58 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:21:58 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <c0b82514-37f8-dffe-579e-adbaeebf7339@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <dcf04de6-1d79-34a5-d5ff-0b52de8742f0@mpicc.de>,
 <c0b82514-37f8-dffe-579e-adbaeebf7339@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0502MB36101C57E683816B4EBAF3FDF7590@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I support the statement as well. Thanks for this important effort.
Stefania

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Inviato: luned? 30 ottobre 2017 10:00:52
A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation

Once again, I support the statement.

Stephanie

On 2017-10-30 04:58, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

Support from me.

Tanya

On 29/10/17 16:02, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>:
I support the statement, I even think we could go a little further and mention the cases we see are live  and concerning us, like the alternative methods of right protections mechanism  that some registries/registrar are implementing in new gTLDs, creating whole mechanism of content control over DNS layer (should the be free to do it?).

But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in NCUC and I think is good.

Cheers,
Martin

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>
> Fine by me.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed at
>> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
>> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
>>
>> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
>> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to replace
>> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting in
>> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>>
>> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 17:00.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

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




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





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



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


From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Mon Oct 30 15:53:37 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:53:37 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0502MB36101C57E683816B4EBAF3FDF7590@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <dcf04de6-1d79-34a5-d5ff-0b52de8742f0@mpicc.de>,
 <c0b82514-37f8-dffe-579e-adbaeebf7339@mail.utoronto.ca>,
 <HE1PR0502MB36101C57E683816B4EBAF3FDF7590@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0502MB36106A6A398644E3F984A084F7590@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

I made the promised (very minor) edits in the google doc. I inserted them in suggesting mode, so feel free to ignore. and i am not even a native speaker



________________________________________
Da: Milan, Stefania
Inviato: luned? 30 ottobre 2017 14:21:58
A: Stephanie Perrin; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation

I support the statement as well. Thanks for this important effort.
Stefania

________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Inviato: luned? 30 ottobre 2017 10:00:52
A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation

Once again, I support the statement.

Stephanie

On 2017-10-30 04:58, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

Support from me.

Tanya

On 29/10/17 16:02, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>:
I support the statement, I even think we could go a little further and mention the cases we see are live  and concerning us, like the alternative methods of right protections mechanism  that some registries/registrar are implementing in new gTLDs, creating whole mechanism of content control over DNS layer (should the be free to do it?).

But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in NCUC and I think is good.

Cheers,
Martin

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>
> Fine by me.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed at
>> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
>> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
>>
>> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
>> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to replace
>> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting in
>> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
>>
>> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at 17:00.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

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




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





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



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


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Oct 30 21:49:22 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 04:49:22 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2
In-Reply-To: <B4218685-BD62-4A3C-B8AE-C9D8AC7C0061@cyberinvasion.net>
References: <CAH5sThmBemdY-3DebtFtTiS3tY1T0PzHRMUWdt17SUCd-wbWsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpo3Ne4=KB_B=c39-ByBwrbBvuzrapRkFDBXXKEaG3BVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B4218685-BD62-4A3C-B8AE-C9D8AC7C0061@cyberinvasion.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=2Js6i8kqkQkTL_3t5=fuz-UCDNgjjxsfYKCPj80=vEw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi James,

thanks for the response and sharing the feeling of the RT.
the topic was raised in several places today e.g. public forum and
operating standards session (there is an ongoing public comment on the
matter) including the question of scope. We will discuss the matter again
during the council meeting on Wednesday. we will see what options we have
and how the GNSO should act here.

we can summarize the points as:
- concerns regarding the process and board intervention on RT
post-transition. a whole debate about the role of the board and/or SO/AC in
the process, since it is a first time.
- SSR2 was not reached out and asked to respond to the concerns.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-31 3:14 GMT+09:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>:

> Hi All,
> Yes this has all happened without any consultation with the review team.
> What appears to have happened is that some concerns were raised in SSAC
> (We have no details on by whom) and instead of engaging with the review
> team through its 2 SSAC members on the RT the SSAC wrote to the board with
> a set of in my opinion (And this is shared by most of the review team)
> unfounded concerns about the skillset and ability to execute there review.
>
> The board then again without consultation with the review team took the
> unnatural action to suspend the review. The first the RT heard about this
> was the letter from the board liason yesterday.
>
> In my opinion the RT had a slow start but has been making good progress
> against the agreed consensus terms of reference and work plan and that this
> suspension is totally unwarranted and without merit.
>
>
> On 30 Oct 2017, at 10:27, Ars?ne Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (observer)
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your email which states the issue. Please consider my comments
> bellow as personal reflections and i stand to be corrected on my judgements.
>
> The question is being discussed now at the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting and
> there are, imo, multiple views with regards to this question. GNSO Chair is
> one of the people who are surprised about the decision that came in (like
> only 24hours) from a meeting between the Board and ASO/AC leaders (that
> happened on Friday). ccNSO Chair seems to say that they were aware of a
> possible decision by the Board which was presented during Friday's meeting
> but Heather (who was serving as proxy for James) seemed not to have heard
> the same.
>
> James, we would like to hear from you (as our rep there) on what you think
> were the issues that the review team were facing, mostly on the scope of
> work as it appears to be one of the main reasons that led the Board to act
> that way. I asked on Twitter and someone replied with the following:
> "According to SSAC, #SSR2 <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2> realized
> they needed a scoping document before finding reviewers", can you tell us
> more about this if it is true? It appears that you were not consulted and
> only were informed of the decision to pause your work? What can you share
> with us on that note? What is the feeling of your collegues in that group
> about this? What are you planning to do?
>
> I have tried to put here all ideas i have though i have limited knowledge
> about this specific review work and would appreciate to hear your thoughts
> on this. Please do share anything you think the NCSG can help with.
>
> Thank you,
> Arsene
>
> ------------------------
> **Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org/>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info/>*, *Mabingwa Forum
> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>*
> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
> GPG: 523644A0
> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles
> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>
> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius
> <http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>
> )* - *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance -
> Internet Freedom.
>
> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)
>
> 2017-10-30 11:09 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> (PC list in cc)
>>
>> I am reaching you because we had yesterday discussion at GNSO working
>> session and then NCSG Policy meeting about the board letter regarding
>> suspending SSR2.
>>
>> there was a consensus that we should reach you as you are the
>> representative to the review team to get more information from you on the
>> status of work there and what kind of issues there.
>>
>> as we only found out about the letter and SSAC advice in the last 2 days,
>> we have little idea about the current state. any update from you will be
>> really helpful. it is clear that there is concern about the process and the
>> possible involvement of board but we are trying to get the full picture to
>> work on common NCSG position on the matter.
>>
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171031/7cf6088d/attachment.htm>

From james at cyberinvasion.net  Mon Oct 30 20:14:12 2017
From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:14:12 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWpo3Ne4=KB_B=c39-ByBwrbBvuzrapRkFDBXXKEaG3BVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmBemdY-3DebtFtTiS3tY1T0PzHRMUWdt17SUCd-wbWsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpo3Ne4=KB_B=c39-ByBwrbBvuzrapRkFDBXXKEaG3BVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B4218685-BD62-4A3C-B8AE-C9D8AC7C0061@cyberinvasion.net>

Hi All,
Yes this has all happened without any consultation with the review team.
What appears to have happened is that some concerns were raised in SSAC (We have no details on by whom) and instead of engaging with the review team through its 2 SSAC members on the RT the SSAC wrote to the board with a set of in my opinion (And this is shared by most of the review team) unfounded concerns about the skillset and ability to execute there review.

The board then again without consultation with the review team took the unnatural action to suspend the review. The first the RT heard about this was the letter from the board liason yesterday.

In my opinion the RT had a slow start but has been making good progress against the agreed consensus terms of reference and work plan and that this suspension is totally unwarranted and without merit.


On 30 Oct 2017, at 10:27, Ars?ne Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>> wrote:

(observer)

Hi Rafik,

Thanks for your email which states the issue. Please consider my comments bellow as personal reflections and i stand to be corrected on my judgements.

The question is being discussed now at the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting and there are, imo, multiple views with regards to this question. GNSO Chair is one of the people who are surprised about the decision that came in (like only 24hours) from a meeting between the Board and ASO/AC leaders (that happened on Friday). ccNSO Chair seems to say that they were aware of a possible decision by the Board which was presented during Friday's meeting but Heather (who was serving as proxy for James) seemed not to have heard the same.

James, we would like to hear from you (as our rep there) on what you think were the issues that the review team were facing, mostly on the scope of work as it appears to be one of the main reasons that led the Board to act that way. I asked on Twitter and someone replied with the following: "According to SSAC, #SSR2<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2> realized they needed a scoping document before finding reviewers", can you tell us more about this if it is true? It appears that you were not consulted and only were informed of the decision to pause your work? What can you share with us on that note? What is the feeling of your collegues in that group about this? What are you planning to do?

I have tried to put here all ideas i have though i have limited knowledge about this specific review work and would appreciate to hear your thoughts on this. Please do share anything you think the NCSG can help with.

Thank you,
Arsene

------------------------
*Ars?ne Tungali<http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international<http://www.rudiinternational.org/>,
CEO, Smart Services Sarl<http://www.smart-serv.info/>, Mabingwa Forum<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors> & Mexico<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) - AFRISIG 2016<http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger<http://tungali.blogspot.com/> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>) - IGFSA Member<http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.

Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)

2017-10-30 11:09 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
Hi James,

(PC list in cc)

I am reaching you because we had yesterday discussion at GNSO working session and then NCSG Policy meeting about the board letter regarding suspending SSR2.

there was a consensus that we should reach you as you are the representative to the review team to get more information from you on the status of work there and what kind of issues there.

as we only found out about the letter and SSAC advice in the last 2 days, we have little idea about the current state. any update from you will be really helpful. it is clear that there is concern about the process and the possible involvement of board but we are trying to get the full picture to work on common NCSG position on the matter.

Best,

Rafik

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171030/f3cad01e/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 31 07:37:33 2017
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:37:33 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0502MB36106A6A398644E3F984A084F7590@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAH5sThkR94XYE1O_90ndrCGnfgFuVc1=A3O1g+OAcFKJfyu06w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171029073354.4adznw2nt7hzd6re@jay.tarvainen.info>
 <4BA78A61-F957-49C2-A804-9524C5F509D0@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkAzWw9ix5-k+7yek2aQ=W6d42kHazKZdpSkcE=10EYyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <dcf04de6-1d79-34a5-d5ff-0b52de8742f0@mpicc.de>
 <c0b82514-37f8-dffe-579e-adbaeebf7339@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <HE1PR0502MB36101C57E683816B4EBAF3FDF7590@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <HE1PR0502MB36106A6A398644E3F984A084F7590@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=-hP6sjnDOxPL_xHMB6tAb=YEM2RqooDb+GSQ7BDyt7Q@mail.gmail.com>

hi all,

we have a majority of PC members supporting the statement and not seeing
any objection in NCSG mailing list, I believe we can interpret that the
statement is endorsed by NCSG.
Thanks, all. I will share the info in the NCSG session today.

Best,

Rafik

2017-10-30 22:53 GMT+09:00 Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>:

> I made the promised (very minor) edits in the google doc. I inserted them
> in suggesting mode, so feel free to ignore. and i am not even a native
> speaker
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: Milan, Stefania
> Inviato: luned? 30 ottobre 2017 14:21:58
> A: Stephanie Perrin; ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
>
> I support the statement as well. Thanks for this important effort.
> Stefania
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Inviato: luned? 30 ottobre 2017 10:00:52
> A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Statement on content regulation
>
> Once again, I support the statement.
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-10-30 04:58, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>
> Support from me.
>
> Tanya
>
> On 29/10/17 16:02, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Thanks all, looking to hear from other PC members soon.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-29 18:15 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>:
> I support the statement, I even think we could go a little further and
> mention the cases we see are live  and concerning us, like the alternative
> methods of right protections mechanism  that some registries/registrar are
> implementing in new gTLDs, creating whole mechanism of content control over
> DNS layer (should the be free to do it?).
>
> But I have nothing to objection to the letter, I followed it in NCUC and I
> think is good.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> > On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> >
> > Fine by me.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Oct 29 15:43, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>) wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> as you may know, there was a statement on content regulation discussed
> at
> >> NCUC level and there was a suggestion to make it an NCSG statement
> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voPCb3EIi__
> >> umZ1b2RCwkWhyn9wjnLAkiWdenT1dOKo/edit.
> >>
> >> I would like to ask PC members to review it and get it endorsed as NCSG
> >> comment. if we got consensus around it, we can make a small edit to
> replace
> >> NCUC occurrences by NCSG. we should get this done within ICANN meeting
> in
> >> Abu Dhabi since there was initial consultation at NCUC level.
> >>
> >> as a reminder, we have our policy committee meeting this afternoon at
> 17:00.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171031/1caf39f0/attachment.htm>

From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu  Tue Oct 31 09:19:37 2017
From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:19:37 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2
In-Reply-To: <B4218685-BD62-4A3C-B8AE-C9D8AC7C0061@cyberinvasion.net>
References: <CAH5sThmBemdY-3DebtFtTiS3tY1T0PzHRMUWdt17SUCd-wbWsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpo3Ne4=KB_B=c39-ByBwrbBvuzrapRkFDBXXKEaG3BVg@mail.gmail.com>,
 <B4218685-BD62-4A3C-B8AE-C9D8AC7C0061@cyberinvasion.net>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0502MB36109C862DE105D306BB63A9F75E0@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear James, thanks for sharing your notes on what is surely a painful process.

What I think should be our main concern is, besides the specific case of this RT, twofold: this might set a dangerous precedent for the future of other RTs or ad hoc entities of this kind, and it might jeopardize the independence of RTs (if you scared the Board calls you off you might want to be more cautious bla bla bla, self-censorship sort to speak)


________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Inviato: luned? 30 ottobre 2017 19:14:12
A: Ars?ne Tungali
Cc: ncsg-pc
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2

Hi All,
Yes this has all happened without any consultation with the review team.
What appears to have happened is that some concerns were raised in SSAC (We have no details on by whom) and instead of engaging with the review team through its 2 SSAC members on the RT the SSAC wrote to the board with a set of in my opinion (And this is shared by most of the review team) unfounded concerns about the skillset and ability to execute there review.

The board then again without consultation with the review team took the unnatural action to suspend the review. The first the RT heard about this was the letter from the board liason yesterday.

In my opinion the RT had a slow start but has been making good progress against the agreed consensus terms of reference and work plan and that this suspension is totally unwarranted and without merit.


On 30 Oct 2017, at 10:27, Ars?ne Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>> wrote:

(observer)

Hi Rafik,

Thanks for your email which states the issue. Please consider my comments bellow as personal reflections and i stand to be corrected on my judgements.

The question is being discussed now at the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting and there are, imo, multiple views with regards to this question. GNSO Chair is one of the people who are surprised about the decision that came in (like only 24hours) from a meeting between the Board and ASO/AC leaders (that happened on Friday). ccNSO Chair seems to say that they were aware of a possible decision by the Board which was presented during Friday's meeting but Heather (who was serving as proxy for James) seemed not to have heard the same.

James, we would like to hear from you (as our rep there) on what you think were the issues that the review team were facing, mostly on the scope of work as it appears to be one of the main reasons that led the Board to act that way. I asked on Twitter and someone replied with the following: "According to SSAC, #SSR2<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2> realized they needed a scoping document before finding reviewers", can you tell us more about this if it is true? It appears that you were not consulted and only were informed of the decision to pause your work? What can you share with us on that note? What is the feeling of your collegues in that group about this? What are you planning to do?

I have tried to put here all ideas i have though i have limited knowledge about this specific review work and would appreciate to hear your thoughts on this. Please do share anything you think the NCSG can help with.

Thank you,
Arsene

------------------------
*Ars?ne Tungali<http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international<http://www.rudiinternational.org/>,
CEO, Smart Services Sarl<http://www.smart-serv.info/>, Mabingwa Forum<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors> & Mexico<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) - AFRISIG 2016<http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger<http://tungali.blogspot.com/> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>) - IGFSA Member<http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.

Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)

2017-10-30 11:09 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
Hi James,

(PC list in cc)

I am reaching you because we had yesterday discussion at GNSO working session and then NCSG Policy meeting about the board letter regarding suspending SSR2.

there was a consensus that we should reach you as you are the representative to the review team to get more information from you on the status of work there and what kind of issues there.

as we only found out about the letter and SSAC advice in the last 2 days, we have little idea about the current state. any update from you will be really helpful. it is clear that there is concern about the process and the possible involvement of board but we are trying to get the full picture to work on common NCSG position on the matter.

Best,

Rafik

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




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


From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Tue Oct 31 09:48:33 2017
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:48:33 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0502MB36109C862DE105D306BB63A9F75E0@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAH5sThmBemdY-3DebtFtTiS3tY1T0PzHRMUWdt17SUCd-wbWsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpo3Ne4=KB_B=c39-ByBwrbBvuzrapRkFDBXXKEaG3BVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B4218685-BD62-4A3C-B8AE-C9D8AC7C0061@cyberinvasion.net>
 <HE1PR0502MB36109C862DE105D306BB63A9F75E0@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWrJTXveY4LtvyqHy6Q6Fvb_htQDsopMBoL4TbpsCMaLEg@mail.gmail.com>

James,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings on this. I agree with
Stephanie that there is a danger with regards to this seen as a precedent
for future RTs. We need to understand what's really going on so we know how
to respond. Since there is a Council meeting tomorrow where we will discuss
this as well, please give us as many inputs as you can to help us
understand better.

I would like to paste here this note (i believe a letter from the Board to
whom?) that was shared by Farzi on a council skype chat. I bring it here so
we have everything at the same place :

[Message starts here]

All,

On behalf of the Board, set out below is the background to the letter we
sent to the SSR2 Review Team. We hope that this background is helpful.
The Stability, Security, and Resilience Review now underway (SSR2) is
intended to provide critical input needed to evaluate ICANN?s progress in
fulfilling its core mission. Under the ICANN Bylaws, the composition of the
review team is to be determined by the community through its Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees.  The ICANN Board takes seriously its
responsibility to safeguard the integrity of this process and the
independence of the review as well as to ensure that ICANN resources are
deployed efficiently and effectively.

In June, the ICANN Board wrote to the SSR2 team to express concern about
the adequacy of the SSR2 work plan, terms of reference, and proposed
scope.  We heard some of these same concerns from members of the Security
and Stability Advisory Committee in late September, and the SSAC formally
advised the Board about its concerns on October 4.  The Board?s
Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) forwarded this letter to SO/AC
chairs on the same date, and indicated that it would be providing
recommendations to the Board and discussing the concerns with SO/AC chairs
in Abu Dhabi.

On October 3, the Board wrote once again to the SSR2 team concerning its
Subgroup 2 audit plan, which proposed to audit ICANN?s internal security
policies and procedures.  We acknowledged that a general understanding of
internal security at ICANN was relevant to the work of SSR2, but considered
that an audit exceeded the scope of the review. The SSR2 team responded on
6 October.

Throughout October, the Board considered the SSAC?s advice and received
recommendations from the OEC.  On October 27, as we gathered here in Abu
Dhabi, members of the Board again met with SO/AC Chairs to convey the
Board?s view that the SSR2 Review should be paused until the SOs and ACs
had an opportunity to consider, in light of the expressed concerns, whether
adjustments are needed to achieve the purpose of the review.  We realise
that our message to the gathered chairs may not have been clear.

The Board has not usurped the community?s authority with respect to this
review. Rather, we are asking the SOs and ACs to consider the concerns we
have heard and determine whether or not adjustments are needed.  We believe
that a temporary pause in the SSR2 work while this consideration is under
way is a sensible approach designed to ensure stakeholders can reach a
common understanding on the appropriate scope and work plan, which will
ensure the efficient use of ICANN?s resources as the review continues to
fulfill its mission.

We stand ready to assist the SOs and ACs in any way so that stakeholders
can resume the important work of the SSR review as soon as they are ready.

[Message ends here]

I would like to request you to comment on the above and give us your
perspectives with regards to this "clarification" from the Board of their
action, which will help us make up our mind. Please do this whenever you
can.

Also, someone shared the following with me on Twitter when i was
complaining about this issue. Looks like there has been some communication
between the Board-SSAC-SSR2 since June. Here is the timeline he provided:

[Start]
Timeline
June: Board-> #SSR2 <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2>
Late Sep #SSAC <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSAC>-> Board
10/3 Board-> #SSR2 <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2>
10/4 SSAC ->Board
10/4 Board OEC->SO/AC
10/6 SSR2->Board
[End]

Can you also comment on the above? Has this happened? Also, if you can,
please provide us with any substance from the communications between the
Board and the SSR2.

Thank you very much,
Arsene (observer)

------------------------
**Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
& Mexico
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
- AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>
). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius
<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>)*
- *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet
Freedom.

Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)

2017-10-31 9:19 GMT+02:00 Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>:

> Dear James, thanks for sharing your notes on what is surely a painful
> process.
>
> What I think should be our main concern is, besides the specific case of
> this RT, twofold: this might set a dangerous precedent for the future of
> other RTs or ad hoc entities of this kind, and it might jeopardize the
> independence of RTs (if you scared the Board calls you off you might want
> to be more cautious bla bla bla, self-censorship sort to speak)
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di James Gannon <
> james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Inviato: luned? 30 ottobre 2017 19:14:12
> A: Ars?ne Tungali
> Cc: ncsg-pc
> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2
>
> Hi All,
> Yes this has all happened without any consultation with the review team.
> What appears to have happened is that some concerns were raised in SSAC
> (We have no details on by whom) and instead of engaging with the review
> team through its 2 SSAC members on the RT the SSAC wrote to the board with
> a set of in my opinion (And this is shared by most of the review team)
> unfounded concerns about the skillset and ability to execute there review.
>
> The board then again without consultation with the review team took the
> unnatural action to suspend the review. The first the RT heard about this
> was the letter from the board liason yesterday.
>
> In my opinion the RT had a slow start but has been making good progress
> against the agreed consensus terms of reference and work plan and that this
> suspension is totally unwarranted and without merit.
>
>
> On 30 Oct 2017, at 10:27, Ars?ne Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com<mailto:
> arsenebaguma at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> (observer)
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your email which states the issue. Please consider my comments
> bellow as personal reflections and i stand to be corrected on my judgements.
>
> The question is being discussed now at the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting and
> there are, imo, multiple views with regards to this question. GNSO Chair is
> one of the people who are surprised about the decision that came in (like
> only 24hours) from a meeting between the Board and ASO/AC leaders (that
> happened on Friday). ccNSO Chair seems to say that they were aware of a
> possible decision by the Board which was presented during Friday's meeting
> but Heather (who was serving as proxy for James) seemed not to have heard
> the same.
>
> James, we would like to hear from you (as our rep there) on what you think
> were the issues that the review team were facing, mostly on the scope of
> work as it appears to be one of the main reasons that led the Board to act
> that way. I asked on Twitter and someone replied with the following:
> "According to SSAC, #SSR2<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2> realized
> they needed a scoping document before finding reviewers", can you tell us
> more about this if it is true? It appears that you were not consulted and
> only were informed of the decision to pause your work? What can you share
> with us on that note? What is the feeling of your collegues in that group
> about this? What are you planning to do?
>
> I have tried to put here all ideas i have though i have limited knowledge
> about this specific review work and would appreciate to hear your thoughts
> on this. Please do share anything you think the NCSG can help with.
>
> Thank you,
> Arsene
>
> ------------------------
> *Ars?ne Tungali<http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international<http://www.
> rudiinternational.org/>,
> CEO, Smart Services Sarl<http://www.smart-serv.info/>, Mabingwa Forum<
> http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
> Tel: +243 993810967
> GPG: 523644A0
> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<http://tungali.
> blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) -
> ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-
> do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-
> leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors> & Mexico<http://www.
> internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-
> programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) - AFRISIG 2016<
> http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger<http://tungali.
> blogspot.com/> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles<https://www.icann.org/
> news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech<https://www.icann.
> org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>). AFRINIC Fellow
> (Mauritius<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-
> afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>) - IGFSA Member<http://www.igfsa.org/> -
> Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.
>
> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English<
> http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French<http://cipesa.org/?
> wpfb_dl=242>)
>
> 2017-10-30 11:09 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> Hi James,
>
> (PC list in cc)
>
> I am reaching you because we had yesterday discussion at GNSO working
> session and then NCSG Policy meeting about the board letter regarding
> suspending SSR2.
>
> there was a consensus that we should reach you as you are the
> representative to the review team to get more information from you on the
> status of work there and what kind of issues there.
>
> as we only found out about the letter and SSAC advice in the last 2 days,
> we have little idea about the current state. any update from you will be
> really helpful. it is clear that there is concern about the process and the
> possible involvement of board but we are trying to get the full picture to
> work on common NCSG position on the matter.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171031/12f86d42/attachment.htm>

From matthew at intpolicy.com  Tue Oct 31 09:50:39 2017
From: matthew at intpolicy.com (matthew shears)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:50:39 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWrJTXveY4LtvyqHy6Q6Fvb_htQDsopMBoL4TbpsCMaLEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmBemdY-3DebtFtTiS3tY1T0PzHRMUWdt17SUCd-wbWsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpo3Ne4=KB_B=c39-ByBwrbBvuzrapRkFDBXXKEaG3BVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B4218685-BD62-4A3C-B8AE-C9D8AC7C0061@cyberinvasion.net>
 <HE1PR0502MB36109C862DE105D306BB63A9F75E0@HE1PR0502MB3610.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>,
 <CABDXvWrJTXveY4LtvyqHy6Q6Fvb_htQDsopMBoL4TbpsCMaLEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <LOXP123MB0055851926269220539A7DDFB05E0@LOXP123MB0055.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hi Arsene


This was sent from the Board yesterday afternoon to the SO/AC leadership.


Matthew

________________________________
From: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> on behalf of Ars?ne Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:48:33 AM
To: Milan, Stefania
Cc: ncsg-pc; James Gannon
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2

James,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings on this. I agree with Stephanie that there is a danger with regards to this seen as a precedent for future RTs. We need to understand what's really going on so we know how to respond. Since there is a Council meeting tomorrow where we will discuss this as well, please give us as many inputs as you can to help us understand better.

I would like to paste here this note (i believe a letter from the Board to whom?) that was shared by Farzi on a council skype chat. I bring it here so we have everything at the same place :

[Message starts here]

All,

On behalf of the Board, set out below is the background to the letter we sent to the SSR2 Review Team. We hope that this background is helpful.
The Stability, Security, and Resilience Review now underway (SSR2) is intended to provide critical input needed to evaluate ICANN?s progress in fulfilling its core mission. Under the ICANN Bylaws, the composition of the review team is to be determined by the community through its Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees.  The ICANN Board takes seriously its responsibility to safeguard the integrity of this process and the independence of the review as well as to ensure that ICANN resources are deployed efficiently and effectively.

In June, the ICANN Board wrote to the SSR2 team to express concern about the adequacy of the SSR2 work plan, terms of reference, and proposed scope.  We heard some of these same concerns from members of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee in late September, and the SSAC formally advised the Board about its concerns on October 4.  The Board?s Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) forwarded this letter to SO/AC chairs on the same date, and indicated that it would be providing recommendations to the Board and discussing the concerns with SO/AC chairs in Abu Dhabi.

On October 3, the Board wrote once again to the SSR2 team concerning its Subgroup 2 audit plan, which proposed to audit ICANN?s internal security policies and procedures.  We acknowledged that a general understanding of internal security at ICANN was relevant to the work of SSR2, but considered that an audit exceeded the scope of the review. The SSR2 team responded on 6 October.

Throughout October, the Board considered the SSAC?s advice and received recommendations from the OEC.  On October 27, as we gathered here in Abu Dhabi, members of the Board again met with SO/AC Chairs to convey the Board?s view that the SSR2 Review should be paused until the SOs and ACs had an opportunity to consider, in light of the expressed concerns, whether adjustments are needed to achieve the purpose of the review.  We realise that our message to the gathered chairs may not have been clear.

The Board has not usurped the community?s authority with respect to this review. Rather, we are asking the SOs and ACs to consider the concerns we have heard and determine whether or not adjustments are needed.  We believe that a temporary pause in the SSR2 work while this consideration is under way is a sensible approach designed to ensure stakeholders can reach a common understanding on the appropriate scope and work plan, which will ensure the efficient use of ICANN?s resources as the review continues to fulfill its mission.

We stand ready to assist the SOs and ACs in any way so that stakeholders can resume the important work of the SSR review as soon as they are ready.

[Message ends here]

I would like to request you to comment on the above and give us your perspectives with regards to this "clarification" from the Board of their action, which will help us make up our mind. Please do this whenever you can.

Also, someone shared the following with me on Twitter when i was complaining about this issue. Looks like there has been some communication between the Board-SSAC-SSR2 since June. Here is the timeline he provided:

[Start]
Timeline
June: Board-> #SSR2<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2>
Late Sep #SSAC<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSAC>-> Board
10/3 Board-> #SSR2<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2>
10/4 SSAC ->Board
10/4 Board OEC->SO/AC
10/6 SSR2->Board
[End]

Can you also comment on the above? Has this happened? Also, if you can, please provide us with any substance from the communications between the Board and the SSR2.

Thank you very much,
Arsene (observer)

------------------------
*Ars?ne Tungali<http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international<http://www.rudiinternational.org>,
CEO, Smart Services Sarl<http://www.smart-serv.info>, Mabingwa Forum<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors> & Mexico<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) - AFRISIG 2016<http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>) - IGFSA Member<http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.

Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)

2017-10-31 9:19 GMT+02:00 Milan, Stefania <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu<mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>>:
Dear James, thanks for sharing your notes on what is surely a painful process.

What I think should be our main concern is, besides the specific case of this RT, twofold: this might set a dangerous precedent for the future of other RTs or ad hoc entities of this kind, and it might jeopardize the independence of RTs (if you scared the Board calls you off you might want to be more cautious bla bla bla, self-censorship sort to speak)


________________________________________
Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>> per conto di James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
Inviato: luned? 30 ottobre 2017 19:14:12
A: Ars?ne Tungali
Cc: ncsg-pc
Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] About SSR2

Hi All,
Yes this has all happened without any consultation with the review team.
What appears to have happened is that some concerns were raised in SSAC (We have no details on by whom) and instead of engaging with the review team through its 2 SSAC members on the RT the SSAC wrote to the board with a set of in my opinion (And this is shared by most of the review team) unfounded concerns about the skillset and ability to execute there review.

The board then again without consultation with the review team took the unnatural action to suspend the review. The first the RT heard about this was the letter from the board liason yesterday.

In my opinion the RT had a slow start but has been making good progress against the agreed consensus terms of reference and work plan and that this suspension is totally unwarranted and without merit.


On 30 Oct 2017, at 10:27, Ars?ne Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com><mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>>> wrote:

(observer)

Hi Rafik,

Thanks for your email which states the issue. Please consider my comments bellow as personal reflections and i stand to be corrected on my judgements.

The question is being discussed now at the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting and there are, imo, multiple views with regards to this question. GNSO Chair is one of the people who are surprised about the decision that came in (like only 24hours) from a meeting between the Board and ASO/AC leaders (that happened on Friday). ccNSO Chair seems to say that they were aware of a possible decision by the Board which was presented during Friday's meeting but Heather (who was serving as proxy for James) seemed not to have heard the same.

James, we would like to hear from you (as our rep there) on what you think were the issues that the review team were facing, mostly on the scope of work as it appears to be one of the main reasons that led the Board to act that way. I asked on Twitter and someone replied with the following: "According to SSAC, #SSR2<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSR2> realized they needed a scoping document before finding reviewers", can you tell us more about this if it is true? It appears that you were not consulted and only were informed of the decision to pause your work? What can you share with us on that note? What is the feeling of your collegues in that group about this? What are you planning to do?

I have tried to put here all ideas i have though i have limited knowledge about this specific review work and would appreciate to hear your thoughts on this. Please do share anything you think the NCSG can help with.

Thank you,
Arsene

------------------------
*Ars?ne Tungali<http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international<http://www.rudiinternational.org/>,
CEO, Smart Services Sarl<http://www.smart-serv.info/>, Mabingwa Forum<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>
Tel: +243 993810967<tel:%2B243%20993810967>
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors> & Mexico<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) - AFRISIG 2016<http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger<http://tungali.blogspot.com/> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>) - IGFSA Member<http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.

Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)

2017-10-30 11:09 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>:
Hi James,

(PC list in cc)

I am reaching you because we had yesterday discussion at GNSO working session and then NCSG Policy meeting about the board letter regarding suspending SSR2.

there was a consensus that we should reach you as you are the representative to the review team to get more information from you on the status of work there and what kind of issues there.

as we only found out about the letter and SSAC advice in the last 2 days, we have little idea about the current state. any update from you will be really helpful. it is clear that there is concern about the process and the possible involvement of board but we are trying to get the full picture to work on common NCSG position on the matter.

Best,

Rafik

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




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171031/9d2a5ea0/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Oct 31 10:53:06 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:53:06 +0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCPH selects Rafik Dammak as Council Vice Chair
Message-ID: <20171031085305.b36wc2k4tuyuxcrz@jay.tarvainen.info>

Dear Nathalie,

NCPH has unanimously decided to select Rafik Dammak
as the Vice Chair on GNSO Council for the NCPH.

Sincerely,

Tapani Tarvainen, on behalf of NCSG
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, on behalf of CSG
Julf Helsingius, NomCom appointee to NCPH