From maryam.bakoshi Mon Aug 6 13:19:07 2018 From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:19:07 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Reminder GNSO Chair election timeline and incoming councilors In-Reply-To: <3A592E64-0D6D-46D5-B0B1-E0DD47E8EEA2@icann.org> References: <3A592E64-0D6D-46D5-B0B1-E0DD47E8EEA2@icann.org> Message-ID: <54AF7175-E9A7-4BBB-84E4-D4689391A6AD@icann.org> Dear All Please find below. ? Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: ?+44 7846 471777? Begin forwarded message: Dear all, Please see attached the timeline for the GNSO Chair nomination open date and election. Please remember that new councilors are eligible for nomination as Council chair so the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies? elections should be over by the date of nominations. New councilors are to be announced on the 25th August 2018. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2018 GNSO Chair Election Timeline.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 14147 bytes Desc: 2018 GNSO Chair Election Timeline.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Aug 7 01:26:07 2018 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:26:07 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Reminder GNSO Chair election timeline and incoming councilors In-Reply-To: <54AF7175-E9A7-4BBB-84E4-D4689391A6AD@icann.org> References: <3A592E64-0D6D-46D5-B0B1-E0DD47E8EEA2@icann.org> <54AF7175-E9A7-4BBB-84E4-D4689391A6AD@icann.org> Message-ID: Thanks Maryam, I think NCSG election is on time with that schedule. Best, Rafik Le lun. 6 ao?t 2018 ? 19:19, Maryam Bakoshi a ?crit : > Dear All > > Please find below. > > ? > Many thanks, > > > *Maryam Bakoshi* | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*: ?+44 7846 471777? > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please see attached the timeline for the GNSO Chair nomination open date > and election. > > > > Please remember that new councilors are eligible for nomination as Council > chair so the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies? elections should be > over by the date of nominations. New councilors are to be announced on the > 25th August 2018. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Nathalie > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine > > Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > > Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sun Aug 26 16:53:54 2018 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:53:54 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] PLEASE READ: Process going for In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <620983ee-700b-9f0e-307b-78b0f02d73dc@mail.utoronto.ca> I expect I will have to pen something not specifically as a dissent, but as a positioning statement for this report.? As you can see, very little time going through the final amended report. so will have to do it Monday afternoon.? I will copy the PC on my amended version of the report, but I dont expect Alan will take any of my proposals. cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] PLEASE READ: Process going for Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 00:58:12 -0400 From: Alan Greenberg To: RDS-WHOIS2-RT Next Monday, we will have the plenary meeting to finalize the draft report contents and in particular the recommendations. The meeting is scheduled for 2 hours. *_The deadline for submitting objections to be discussed during the meeting is 23:59 UTC on Sunday, 26 August 2018. _*On Monday we will review any objections or alternate language and determine the level of consensus for each recommendation. There are a lot of sections and recommendations to cover so we will have to be brief and specific. We will also establish priority level for the recommendations. Although we will strive for full (unanimous consensus), it is not required and our ToR gives guidelines for this. Anyone who is not on the call and has not explicitly identified an issue is deemed to be in agreement with the current text. *_If any written statement of objection or dissenting opinions are to be included in the published draft report, they must be submitted no later that 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 29 August 2018. _*Please be on time (or early!) for the meeting so that we can begin on the hour. Alan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt From stephanie.perrin Mon Aug 27 01:54:55 2018 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 18:54:55 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] PLEASE READ: Process going for In-Reply-To: <70bab2e2-3564-0f1c-40eb-af82d4c5de8f@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <70bab2e2-3564-0f1c-40eb-af82d4c5de8f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5959441c-49ef-0157-96ba-12ce262442bb@mail.utoronto.ca> Here is what I have so far....tons more work to do on it. SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] PLEASE READ: Process going for Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 18:37:41 -0400 From: Stephanie Perrin To: rds-whois2-rt at icann.org Unfortunately I am far from finished going through the entire document with a careful read, you all must be speed readers compared to me. Here is the first batch of comments, I will continue but may I suggest you agree to take comments up to Midnight local time?? fairer and since I doubt anyone is logging on at midnight UTC to start reviewing, seems more sensible.? May I suggest in future that we work in google drive or some common interface that shows all our comments?? This is very inefficient. Otherwise those of us who are uncomfortable with some sections still will be driven to dissent.? That would be most unfortunate. Stephanie Perrin On 2018-08-25 00:58, Alan Greenberg wrote: > Next Monday, we will have the plenary meeting to finalize the draft > report contents and in particular the recommendations. The meeting is > scheduled for 2 hours. > > *_The deadline for submitting objections to be discussed during the > meeting is 23:59 UTC on Sunday, 26 August 2018. > > _*On Monday we will review any objections or alternate language and > determine the level of consensus for each recommendation. There are a > lot of sections and recommendations to cover so we will have to be > brief and specific. We will also establish priority level for the > recommendations. > > Although we will strive for full (unanimous consensus), it is not > required and our ToR gives guidelines for this. > > Anyone who is not on the call and has not explicitly identified an > issue is deemed to be in agreement with the current text. > > *_If any written statement of objection or dissenting opinions are to > be included in the published draft report, they must be submitted no > later that 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 29 August 2018. > > _*Please be on time (or early!) for the meeting so that we can begin > on the hour. > > Alan > > > _______________________________________________ > RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list > RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RDS - Draft Report v1.8 17 Augustsp2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 3445197 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 02:32:28 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 08:32:28 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments Draft to be reviewed for 31st July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, as there was no objection, drafts were under review for reasonable time and deadline is just few minutes away, I interpret that the 3 comments are endorsed (attached). I will submit them now. next draft for review and submission is the one for IRP-IOT (ready). we also have to work on the NCSG input for PDP 3.0 and also the early input for EPDP (Milton kindly started the responses). Best, Rafik Le mar. 31 juil. 2018 ? 09:46, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > Thanks Martin for review and endorsement. > the deadline for submission is today 31st July. the 3 comments are in good > shape and main comments were resolved (I have some comments there but they > are not blocking issue and current content is ok). those comments have > been for awhile under PC review and I think several PC members supported > them already on other threads. > if there is no objection by Tuesday 31st July 23:00UTC, the 3 comments > will be submitted. > The IRP-IOT comment will be handled later while I think it is ready too. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 29 juil. 2018 ? 02:27, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a ?crit : > >> Regarding the three ones to final review here, I?ve already commented in >> the ones I had something to add and they were already addressed. So I am ok >> with them. >> >> Cheers, >> Mart?n >> >> On 28 Jul 2018, at 02:04, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks all, >> as there was no objection in PC list and with the deadline, the 3 >> comments were submitted (attached) in time. >> we still have more to do in the coming days. The next comments for review >> and endorsement are: >> >> - [urgent] Long-term Option, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> - [urgent] Short-term Options, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> - [urgent] Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross >> Names >> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >> >> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team >> (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >> >> I think the top 3 are in good shape and just need your review. they were >> already shared in NCSG list for comments. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> > Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach - NCSG Draft .pdf>> review - NCSG comment .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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Long-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline of Reviews - NCSG Comments.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 94666 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process - NCSG comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 93620 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews - NCSG Comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53837 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Aug 1 20:46:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 17:46:37 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EPDP Team Request for Early Input In-Reply-To: <614bd9289bbb4b799993d86f1be5c3c3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <614bd9289bbb4b799993d86f1be5c3c3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <0FFCF657-D417-4B19-85BA-49E17F896405@ferdeline.com> Hi, Please see below a formal request for input on the Temporary Specification. (I know this is not unexpected; but am forwarding this along primarily for the benefit of those who are not subscribed to the EPDP mailing list.) Milton started drafting a response in [this Google Doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16j1QDoHCfTSoRuQADkWa5sNXrr1MxTd5AoY2UkPwgO4/edit) yesterday, however the questions being asked of us have now slightly changed. ?Ayden > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Marika Konings" > Subject: EPDP Team Request for Early Input > > Date: 1 August 2018 at 19:36:36 CEST > To: "farzaneh.badii at gmail.com" > Cc: "stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca" , "icann at ferdeline.com" , "milton at gatech.edu" , "julf at julf.com" , "aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja" , "Kurt Pritz" , "Rafik Dammak" , "Caitlin Tubergen" , "Berry Cobb" , "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Reply-To: "Marika Konings" > > To: ICANN Supporting Organizations / Advisory Committees / GNSO Stakeholder Groups / GNSO Constituencies > > From: EPDP Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data > > Subject: EPDP Team Request for Early Input > > 1 August 2018 > > Dear Community Leader: > > I am writing you on behalf of the Expedited Policy Development Process Team that is considering the [Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf). In accordance with the GNSO Policy Development Process, we are seeking the written opinion on the topic from each Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee and GNSO Stakeholder Group / Constituency. While every Supporting Organisation and Stakeholder Group has been invited to participate in the discussion, we still wish to comply of this Policy Develop Process requirement and afford you the opportunity to make a written submission. > > As this is an [expedited policy development](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexA1), we are going to take advantage of the tighter timeframe afforded to us and require the input in 21 days from today, i.e., on 22 August. We do so because: > > - the working group will start substantive discussions immediately, so timely input is required if it is to be considered, > > - every ICANN stakeholder group has been afforded the opportunity to participate in the working group so the opportunity for this early input is somewhat redundant, and > > - we will provide an additional opportunity with a lengthier timeframe for written input on more complex issues such as the provision of access to full non-public registration data. > > There are three deliverables set out in the [GNSO Charter](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf), that we will work on and deliver in order: > > - a triage document of the Temporary Specification, which includes items that have the Full Consensus support of the EPDP Team that these should be adopted as is. > > - an Initial Report which will include the items that received full consensus support per the triage document as well as all other items of the Temporary Specification (not including the Annex) that were considered and deliberated upon > > - an Initial Report outlining a proposed model of a system for providing accredited access to non-public registration data > > Given the tight timeframe, it is recommended that you focus your early input focus on the first two deliverables only. (As stated above, we will provide an opportunity for input on the more complex issue of ?access? in the near future.) > > To make the most effective comment and have it folded cleanly and clearly into the team?s documentation library, your written response should: > > - Clearly identify the section of the [Temporary Specification](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en/#temp-spec) on which you are commenting, either by line numbers or paragraph. > > - Then clearly state whether your respective group: > > - Supports that section as is (where clearly labelled rationale is optional), > > - Supports that section with modification with substitute language provided and clearly labeled rationale, or > > - Supports the elimination of the section with clearly labeled rationale > > Comments without clearly labelled rationale will probably not add much to the discussion as we are attempted to develop consensus through collaboration and not voting. If you do not comment on a specific section of the document, that absence will not be taken as assent or any other opinion. > > Of course, you are welcome to provide any other input that you deem helpful in facilitating the EPDP Team?s deliberations, but as to the immediate deliverables of the working group, your input on the questions outlined above will be most valuable. > > Please submit your response to gnso-secs at icann.org. Timely input will be summarized in a document and provided to the team. Input received after the due date may be introduced into the discussion by you stakeholder group representative, ICANN staff support or me as the pertinent topic arises. > > Thank you very much and I look forward to receiving your input. You can contact me anytime via email (kurt at kjpritz.com). > > On behalf of the EPDP Team, > > Kurt Pritz > > EPDP Team Chair > > Background > > On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board of Directors (ICANN Board) adopted the [Temporary Specification for generic top-level domain (gTLD) Registration Data](file:///Volumes/GoogleDrive/My%20Drive/Migrated%20DropBox%20Files/Documents/EPDP%20Temp%20Spec/System%20for%20Standardized%20Access%20to%20Non-Public%20Registration%20Data) (?Temporary Specification?) pursuant to the procedures for the establishment of temporary policies in ICANN?s agreements with Registry Operators and Registrars (?Contracts?). The Temporary Specification provides modifications to existing requirements in the Registrar Accreditation and Registry Agreements to help bring them into compliance with the European Union?s General Data Protection Regulation (?GDPR?). Per the procedure for Temporary Policies as outlined in the Contracts, following adoption of the temporary specification, the Board ?shall immediately implement the Consensus Policy development process set forth in ICANN?s Bylaws?. Per the requirements of the procedure for Temporary Policies, this Consensus Policy development process on the temporary specification would need to be carried out within a one-year period as the Temporary Specification can only remain in force for up to 1 year, from the effective date of 25 May 2018. > > At its meeting on 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council initiated an Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adopted the EPDP Team [Charter](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf). The charter outlines a number of questions that the EPDP Team is expected to answer. The scope of the EPDP Team?s efforts includes confirming, or not, the Temporary Specification by 25 May 2019 (the date the Temporary Specification will expire). Additionally, the proposed scope includes discussion of a standardized access model to nonpublic registration data; however, the discussion of a standardized access model will occur only after the EPDP Team has comprehensively answered a series of ?gating questions?, which have been specified in the EPDP Team?s Charter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:08:58 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:08:58 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG EPDP] Fwd: EPDP Team Request for Early Input In-Reply-To: <0FFCF657-D417-4B19-85BA-49E17F896405@ferdeline.com> References: <614bd9289bbb4b799993d86f1be5c3c3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <0FFCF657-D417-4B19-85BA-49E17F896405@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, so in term of process, I think our EPDP members will continue on the draft but since the timeframe is short PC members should review quickly. the draft will be also shared in NCSG list for wider member consultation. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 2 ao?t 2018 ? 02:46, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi, > > Please see below a formal request for input on the Temporary > Specification. (I know this is not unexpected; but am forwarding this along > primarily for the benefit of those who are not subscribed to the EPDP > mailing list.) > > Milton started drafting a response in this Google Doc > yesterday, > however the questions being asked of us have now slightly changed. > > ?Ayden > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *"Marika Konings" > *Subject: **EPDP Team Request for Early Input* > *Date: *1 August 2018 at 19:36:36 CEST > *To: *"farzaneh.badii at gmail.com" > *Cc: *"stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca" < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, "icann at ferdeline.com" < > icann at ferdeline.com>, "milton at gatech.edu" , " > julf at julf.com" , "aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja" < > aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>, "Kurt Pritz" , "Rafik > Dammak" , "Caitlin Tubergen" < > caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>, "Berry Cobb" , " > gnso-secs at icann.org" > *Reply-To: *"Marika Konings" > > *To: ICANN Supporting Organizations / Advisory Committees / GNSO > Stakeholder Groups / GNSO Constituencies* > > *From: EPDP Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data* > > *Subject: EPDP Team Request for Early Input* > > > 1 August 2018 > > Dear Community Leader: > > I am writing you on behalf of the Expedited Policy Development Process > Team that is considering the Temporary Specification for gTLD > Registration Data > . > In accordance with the GNSO Policy Development Process, we are seeking the > written opinion on the topic from each Supporting Organization, Advisory > Committee and GNSO Stakeholder Group / Constituency. While every Supporting > Organisation and Stakeholder Group has been invited to participate in the > discussion, we still wish to comply of this Policy Develop Process > requirement and afford you the opportunity to make a written submission. > > As this is an *expedited policy development > *, > we are going to take advantage of the tighter timeframe afforded to us and > require the input in 21 days from today, i.e., on 22 August. We do so > because: > > 1. the working group will start substantive discussions immediately, > so timely input is required if it is to be considered, > 2. every ICANN stakeholder group has been afforded the opportunity to > participate in the working group so the opportunity for this early input is > somewhat redundant, and > 3. we will provide an additional opportunity with a lengthier > timeframe for written input on more complex issues such as the provision of > access to full non-public registration data. > > > There are three deliverables set out in the GNSO Charter > , > that we will work on and deliver in order: > > - a triage document of the Temporary Specification, which includes > items that have the Full Consensus support of the EPDP Team that these > should be adopted as is. > - an Initial Report which will include the items that received full > consensus support per the triage document as well as all other items of the > Temporary Specification (not including the Annex) that were considered and > deliberated upon > - an Initial Report outlining a proposed model of a system for > providing accredited access to non-public registration data > > > Given the tight timeframe, it is recommended that you focus your early > input focus on the first two deliverables only. (As stated above, we will > provide an opportunity for input on the more complex issue of ?access? in > the near future.) > > To make the most effective comment and have it folded cleanly and clearly > into the team?s documentation library, your written response should: > > 1. Clearly identify the section of the Temporary Specification > > on which you are commenting, either by line numbers or paragraph. > 2. Then clearly state whether your respective group: > 1. Supports that section as is (where clearly labelled rationale is > optional), > 2. Supports that section with modification with substitute language > provided and clearly labeled rationale, or > 3. Supports the elimination of the section with clearly labeled > rationale > > > Comments without clearly labelled rationale will probably not add much to > the discussion as we are attempted to develop consensus through > collaboration and not voting. If you do not comment on a specific section > of the document, that absence will not be taken as assent or any other > opinion. > > Of course, you are welcome to provide any other input that you deem > helpful in facilitating the EPDP Team?s deliberations, but as to the > immediate deliverables of the working group, your input on the questions > outlined above will be most valuable. > > Please submit your response to gnso-secs at icann.org. Timely input will be > summarized in a document and provided to the team. Input received after the > due date may be introduced into the discussion by you stakeholder group > representative, ICANN staff support or me as the pertinent topic arises. > > Thank you very much and I look forward to receiving your input. You can > contact me anytime via email (kurt at kjpritz.com). > > On behalf of the EPDP Team, > > Kurt Pritz > EPDP Team Chair > > *Background* > > On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board of Directors (ICANN Board) adopted the Temporary > Specification for generic top-level domain (gTLD) Registration Data (?Temporary > Specification?) pursuant to the procedures for the establishment of > temporary policies in ICANN?s agreements with Registry Operators and > Registrars (?Contracts?). The Temporary Specification provides > modifications to existing requirements in the Registrar Accreditation and > Registry Agreements to help bring them into compliance with the European > Union?s General Data Protection Regulation (?GDPR?). Per the procedure for > Temporary Policies as outlined in the Contracts, following adoption of the > temporary specification, the Board ?shall immediately implement the > Consensus Policy development process set forth in ICANN?s Bylaws?. Per the > requirements of the procedure for Temporary Policies, this Consensus Policy > development process on the temporary specification would need to be carried > out within a one-year period as the Temporary Specification can only remain > in force for up to 1 year, from the effective date of 25 May 2018. > > At its meeting on 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council initiated an Expedited > Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD > Registration Data and adopted the EPDP Team Charter > . > The charter outlines a number of questions that the EPDP Team is expected > to answer. The scope of the EPDP Team?s efforts includes confirming, or > not, the Temporary Specification by 25 May 2019 (the date the Temporary > Specification will expire). Additionally, the proposed scope includes > discussion of a standardized access model to nonpublic registration data; > however, the discussion of a standardized access model will occur only > after the EPDP Team has comprehensively answered a series of ?gating > questions?, which have been specified in the EPDP Team?s Charter. > > > _______________________________________________ > EPDP mailing list > EPDP at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/epdp > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 07:40:34 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 13:40:34 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment draft to review | submission 10th August Message-ID: Hi all, We have the comment on Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit, drafted by Farzaneh and has been shared for weeks. The deadline for submission is the tomorrow. it was also shared in NCSG list for consultation with members. I dont see any substantive pending comment in the draft and looks in good shape for submission. Please review and check. if there is no objection, it will be submitted by the deadline. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Thu Aug 9 16:43:28 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:43:28 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment draft to review | submission 10th August In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <450E96D9-AB56-4A8E-8B67-B51F336E6349@benin2point0.org> For me, NIHIL @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ (Ekue) Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:40, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > We have the comment on Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit , drafted by Farzaneh and has been shared for weeks. The deadline for submission is the tomorrow. > > it was also shared in NCSG list for consultation with members. I dont see any substantive pending comment in the draft and looks in good shape for submission. Please review and check. if there is no objection, it will be submitted by the deadline. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 18:00:02 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 12:00:02 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment draft to review | submission 10th August In-Reply-To: <450E96D9-AB56-4A8E-8B67-B51F336E6349@benin2point0.org> References: <450E96D9-AB56-4A8E-8B67-B51F336E6349@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Thanks Farzi for another comment! All my support to move it forward. Mart?n On Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 10:43 Farell FOLLY wrote: > For me, NIHIL > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > (Ekue) Farell FOLLY > NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:40, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > We have the comment on Independent Review Process Implementation > Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit, > drafted by Farzaneh and has been shared for weeks. The deadline for > submission is the tomorrow. > > it was also shared in NCSG list for consultation with members. I dont see > any substantive pending comment in the draft and looks in good shape for > submission. Please review and check. if there is no objection, it will be > submitted by the deadline. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 18:01:57 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 17:01:57 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment draft to review | submission 10th August In-Reply-To: References: <450E96D9-AB56-4A8E-8B67-B51F336E6349@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Rafik and all, I think I landed my support for this comment some weeks ago, and I am happy to confirm again that I support the submission. Cheers, Tanya On 9 August 2018 at 17:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Farzi for another comment! All my support to move it forward. > > Mart?n > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 10:43 Farell FOLLY wrote: > >> For me, NIHIL >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY >> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:40, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> We have the comment on Independent Review Process Implementation >> Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations https://docs. >> google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit, >> drafted by Farzaneh and has been shared for weeks. The deadline for >> submission is the tomorrow. >> >> it was also shared in NCSG list for consultation with members. I dont see >> any substantive pending comment in the draft and looks in good shape for >> submission. Please review and check. if there is no objection, it will be >> submitted by the deadline. >> >> 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: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 19:13:50 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 18:13:50 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment draft to review | submission 10th August In-Reply-To: References: <450E96D9-AB56-4A8E-8B67-B51F336E6349@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: My support for this one, thanks Farzi for drafting it! ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Aug 9, 2018, at 5:01 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Hi Rafik and all, > I think I landed my support for this comment some weeks ago, and I am happy to confirm again that I support the submission. > Cheers, > Tanya > >> On 9 August 2018 at 17:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> Thanks Farzi for another comment! All my support to move it forward. >> >> Mart?n >> >>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 10:43 Farell FOLLY wrote: >>> For me, NIHIL >>> >>> @__f_f__ >>> >>> Best Regards >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY >>> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:40, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> We have the comment on Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit, drafted by Farzaneh and has been shared for weeks. The deadline for submission is the tomorrow. >>>> >>>> it was also shared in NCSG list for consultation with members. I dont see any substantive pending comment in the draft and looks in good shape for submission. Please review and check. if there is no objection, it will be submitted by the deadline. >>>> >>>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 12:24:08 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 18:24:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 16th August Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing the draft agenda for our next policy call. As we didn't have yet our NCSG EPDP call (thinking to schedule first one next week and to hold that on biweekly basis on Wednesday), we can spend some on give update from EPDP discussion e.g. surveys. With regard to council agenda, there are at least agenda items I want to highlight. As reminder our NCSG call is on wednesday for this time as EPDP team call is on Tuesday I. Roll call/Introduction II. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-16aug18-en.pdf III. Policy Update - Planning public comments responses: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 - Policy topics: * Update from working groups, review teams. * EPDP updates IV. Misc - Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Aug 14 19:41:43 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 16:41:43 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input Message-ID: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> Dear all, The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on Budget and Operations urgently. I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing Can you please review and provide feedback today if possible, or tomorrow by the latest. Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only inform the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a letter to the GNSO Council. Kind regards, Ayden F?rdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 04:14:34 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 10:14:34 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input In-Reply-To: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> References: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks for the reminder. I made some comments on the draft. Best, Rafik Le mer. 15 ao?t 2018 ? 01:41, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Dear all, > > The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on > Budget and Operations urgently. > > I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing > > Can you please review and provide feedback *today* if possible, or > tomorrow by the latest. > > Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only inform > the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a letter > to the GNSO Council. > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 04:23:14 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 22:23:14 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input In-Reply-To: References: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <6EC3AC68-5E0B-464F-8B72-08296819D52E@gmail.com> I support the answers, I agree with Rafik on the collaboration with CCNSO, I would roll it out right away. Other than that go for it. Cheers, Mart?n > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for the reminder. > I made some comments on the draft. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 15 ao?t 2018 ? 01:41, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : > Dear all, > > The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on Budget and Operations urgently. > > I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing > > Can you please review and provide feedback today if possible, or tomorrow by the latest. > > Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only inform the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a letter to the GNSO Council. > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 09:08:39 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 08:08:39 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input In-Reply-To: <6EC3AC68-5E0B-464F-8B72-08296819D52E@gmail.com> References: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> <6EC3AC68-5E0B-464F-8B72-08296819D52E@gmail.com> Message-ID: I too agree with the suggested answers and agree with both Rafik and Martin?s comments and suggested edits. With these included, the comment is ready to go! ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Aug 15, 2018, at 3:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > > I support the answers, I agree with Rafik on the collaboration with CCNSO, I would roll it out right away. Other than that go for it. > > Cheers, > Mart?n > >> On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks for the reminder. >> I made some comments on the draft. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >>> Le mer. 15 ao?t 2018 ? 01:41, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on Budget and Operations urgently. >>> >>> I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Can you please review and provide feedback today if possible, or tomorrow by the latest. >>> >>> Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only inform the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a letter to the GNSO Council. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 09:52:53 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 08:52:53 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input In-Reply-To: References: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> <6EC3AC68-5E0B-464F-8B72-08296819D52E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I took the liberty to propose amendments to the sentence about ccNSO based on Rafik and Martin's comment and to another sentence about granular approach. Dunno if it's helpful. Thank a lot, Ayden! Cheers, Tanya On 15 August 2018 at 08:08, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > I too agree with the suggested answers and agree with both Rafik and > Martin?s comments and suggested edits. With these included, the comment is > ready to go! > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Aug 15, 2018, at 3:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > I support the answers, I agree with Rafik on the collaboration with CCNSO, > I would roll it out right away. Other than that go for it. > > Cheers, > Mart?n > > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for the reminder. > I made some comments on the draft. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 15 ao?t 2018 ? 01:41, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Dear all, >> >> The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on >> Budget and Operations urgently. >> >> I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/ >> document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Can you please review and provide feedback *today* if possible, or >> tomorrow by the latest. >> >> Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only >> inform the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a >> letter to the GNSO Council. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Aug 15 10:02:39 2018 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 07:02:39 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input In-Reply-To: References: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> <6EC3AC68-5E0B-464F-8B72-08296819D52E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3FCE1676-0AC6-437D-97B4-87C100D3E05B@ferdeline.com> Thanks all for the feedback, suggested edits, and speedy review. I will take this forward to the SCBO mailing list at 15:00 UTC today, to allow a little extra time for further inputs. Best wishes, Ayden > On 15 Aug 2018, at 08:52, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Hi all, > I took the liberty to propose amendments to the sentence about ccNSO based on Rafik and Martin's comment and to another sentence about granular approach. Dunno if it's helpful. Thank a lot, Ayden! > Cheers, > Tanya > > On 15 August 2018 at 08:08, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> I too agree with the suggested answers and agree with both Rafik and Martin?s comments and suggested edits. With these included, the comment is ready to go! >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 15, 2018, at 3:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> >>> I support the answers, I agree with Rafik on the collaboration with CCNSO, I would roll it out right away. Other than that go for it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mart?n >>> >>>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the reminder. >>>> I made some comments on the draft. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le mer. 15 ao?t 2018 ? 01:41, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on Budget and Operations urgently. >>>>> >>>>> I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Can you please review and provide feedback today if possible, or tomorrow by the latest. >>>>> >>>>> Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only inform the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a letter to the GNSO Council. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From claudiokilla at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 19:51:10 2018 From: claudiokilla at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A1udio_Lucena?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:51:10 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input In-Reply-To: <3FCE1676-0AC6-437D-97B4-87C100D3E05B@ferdeline.com> References: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> <6EC3AC68-5E0B-464F-8B72-08296819D52E@gmail.com> <3FCE1676-0AC6-437D-97B4-87C100D3E05B@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks Ayden, Did we have any specific suggestion as to the overlapping issue from the last question? Cl?udio -- Cl?udio S. de Lucena Neto [image: cid:image001.png at 01D03AE9.ED675EB0] [image: http://www.fd.lisboa.ucp.pt/site/resources/design/fdlogo-researchcenter.jpg] Visiting Research Fellow The Center for Cyber, Law and Policy, University of Haifa, Israel ** PhD Candidate, Research Centre for the Future of Law Cat?lica Global School of Law, Universidade Cat?lica Portuguesa * Researcher, Funda??o para a Ci?ncia e a Tecnologia Minist?rio da Ci?ncia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior de Portugal * Professor of Law, Center for Legal Studies Para?ba State University (UEPB), Brazil LinkedIn: https://br.linkedin.com/pub/cl?udio-lucena/22/7a8/822 Universidade Estadual da Para?ba www.uepb.edu.br Centro de Ci?ncias Jur?dicas - Campus I Departamento de Direito Privado Rua Coronel Salvino de Figueiredo, 157 CEP 58.400-253 Campina Grande - PB - Brasil Fone/Fax: *55 83 3310 9753 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. Em qua, 15 de ago de 2018 ?s 04:02, Ayden F?rdeline escreveu: > Thanks all for the feedback, suggested edits, and speedy review. I will > take this forward to the SCBO mailing list at 15:00 UTC today, to allow a > little extra time for further inputs. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > On 15 Aug 2018, at 08:52, Tatiana Tropina > wrote: > > Hi all, > I took the liberty to propose amendments to the sentence about ccNSO based > on Rafik and Martin's comment and to another sentence about granular > approach. Dunno if it's helpful. Thank a lot, Ayden! > Cheers, > Tanya > > On 15 August 2018 at 08:08, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> I too agree with the suggested answers and agree with both Rafik and >> Martin?s comments and suggested edits. With these included, the comment is >> ready to go! >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Aug 15, 2018, at 3:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I support the answers, I agree with Rafik on the collaboration with >> CCNSO, I would roll it out right away. Other than that go for it. >> >> Cheers, >> Mart?n >> >> On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks for the reminder. >> I made some comments on the draft. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mer. 15 ao?t 2018 ? 01:41, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on >>> Budget and Operations urgently. >>> >>> I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Can you please review and provide feedback *today* if possible, or >>> tomorrow by the latest. >>> >>> Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only >>> inform the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a >>> letter to the GNSO Council. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2647 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Aug 15 22:46:57 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:46:57 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input In-Reply-To: References: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> <6EC3AC68-5E0B-464F-8B72-08296819D52E@gmail.com> <3FCE1676-0AC6-437D-97B4-87C100D3E05B@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <4F0C4F35-A8FB-4AE1-84F9-FD6077551115@ferdeline.com> I have no specific suggestions. If others do, please do share them. Many thanks, Ayden > On 15 Aug 2018, at 18:51, Cl?udio Lucena wrote: > > Thanks Ayden, > Did we have any specific suggestion as to the overlapping issue from the last question? > Cl?udio > > -- > Cl?udio S. de Lucena Neto > > [cid:image001.png at 01D03AE9.ED675EB0] > [http://www.fd.lisboa.ucp.pt/site/resources/design/fdlogo-researchcenter.jpg] > > Visiting Research Fellow > The Center for Cyber, Law and Policy, University of Haifa, Israel > ** > > PhD Candidate, Research Centre for the Future of Law > Cat?lica Global School of Law, Universidade Cat?lica Portuguesa > * > Researcher, Funda??o para a Ci?ncia e a Tecnologia > Minist?rio da Ci?ncia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior de Portugal > * > Professor of Law, Center for Legal Studies > Para?ba State University (UEPB), Brazil > > LinkedIn: [https://br.linkedin.com/pub/cl?udio-lucena/22/7a8/822](https://br.linkedin.com/pub/cl%C3%A1udio-lucena/22/7a8/822) > > Universidade Estadual da Para?ba > [www.uepb.edu.br](https://br.linkedin.com/pub/cl%C3%A1udio-lucena/22/7a8/822) > > Centro de Ci?ncias Jur?dicas - Campus I > Departamento de Direito Privado > Rua Coronel Salvino de Figueiredo, 157 > CEP 58.400-253 > Campina Grande - PB - Brasil > Fone/Fax: *55 83 3310 9753 > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. > > Em qua, 15 de ago de 2018 ?s 04:02, Ayden F?rdeline escreveu: > >> Thanks all for the feedback, suggested edits, and speedy review. I will take this forward to the SCBO mailing list at 15:00 UTC today, to allow a little extra time for further inputs. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 08:52, Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> I took the liberty to propose amendments to the sentence about ccNSO based on Rafik and Martin's comment and to another sentence about granular approach. Dunno if it's helpful. Thank a lot, Ayden! >>> Cheers, >>> Tanya >>> >>> On 15 August 2018 at 08:08, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>> >>>> I too agree with the suggested answers and agree with both Rafik and Martin?s comments and suggested edits. With these included, the comment is ready to go! >>>> >>>> ----------------- >>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>> +243 993810967 >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>> >>>> On Aug 15, 2018, at 3:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>> >>>>> I support the answers, I agree with Rafik on the collaboration with CCNSO, I would roll it out right away. Other than that go for it. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mart?n >>>>> >>>>>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the reminder. >>>>>> I made some comments on the draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le mer. 15 ao?t 2018 ? 01:41, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on Budget and Operations urgently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please review and provide feedback today if possible, or tomorrow by the latest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only inform the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a letter to the GNSO Council. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Aug 16 01:08:09 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:08:09 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RrSG Feedback to GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The future of bottom-up, multistakeholder participation in ICANN activities is being questioned again. > "The RrSG encourages the Council to consider team make up specific to each PDP, just as it does with drafting the scope, to ensure that the team make up is fit for purpose. The RrSG believes the Council?s approach to the recent EPDP is a good example of considering the uniqueness of the issue and creating a suitable team model." ?Ayden > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Darcy Southwell" > Subject: [council] RrSG Feedback to GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper > > Date: 16 August 2018 at 00:03:34 CEST > To: "GNSO Council List" > Reply-To: "Darcy Southwell" > > Council, > > Please see the comments below from the RrRSG regarding the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. > > Thank you, > Darcy > > The Registrar Stakeholder Group appreciates the opportunity to comment on the GNSO PDP 3.0 document and offers the following: > > 4.1 Working Group Dynamics ? Incremental Improvements > > #1. Terms of participation for WG members > > The RrSG supports outlining commitment expectations for WG members, so long as it doesn?t adversely impact the ability to coordinate volunteers and solicit appropriate representation for a PDP based on its charter and specified structure. To ensure volunteers understand what will be asked of them, the RrSG suggests any call for volunteers include some basic commitments/expectations, such as: > > - anticipated duration of the PDP, meeting commitment (e.g., weekly meetings of 90 minutes) and expected availability to attend [the majority of] meetings and devote sufficient time to prepare for meetings (e.g., require reading); > - recommended expertise, if necessary, for the subject matter of the PDP; > - knowledge of and respect for the GNSO policy development process; and > - good faith commitment to working to build consensus. > > PDP participants should be appropriately trained on how to use ICANN?s remote meeting tools, including AdobeConnect, to ensure that PDP work is not disrupted due to user challenges with the technology. > > #2. Consider alternatives to open WG model > > The RrSG supports balanced representation when it comes to policy development. However, a one-size-fits-all approach to PDP team structures is not appropriate. The RrSG encourages the Council to consider team make up specific to each PDP, just as it does with drafting the scope, to ensure that the team make up is fit for purpose. The RrSG believes the Council?s approach to the recent EPDP is a good example of considering the uniqueness of the issue and creating a suitable team model. > > #3. Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time > > The RrSG cautions the Council to remember that, at times, a PDP participant withdraws due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., job change, medical issue, etc.). Rather than prohibiting new members in such cases, an expectation should be made of replacement members to come up to speed on what has transpired, understand where consensus has been reached, etc., to avoid any delay in the PDP?s work or the rehashing of previously decided issues as a result of the new member?s concern. > > 4.2 WG Leadership ? Incremental Improvements > > #4. Capture vs. Consensus Playbook > > The RrSG supports the idea of a ?playbook? or expanded guidelines to assist WG leaders, but we are also concerned that there may be a more systemic issue. Groups seem ever more willing to ?lay down on the tracks? for almost any issue. The community as a whole needs to determine a way to replenish its ?lake of goodwill? which appears in a severe drought. > > #5. Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs > > The RrSG supports the idea of the Council liaison having a more active role in PDP WGs, including the ability to actively be involved in leadership/preparatory meetings. > > #6. Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum skills/expertise required > > No strong position here. > > 4.3 Complexity of Subject Matter ? Incremental Improvements > > #7. Creation of Cooperative Teams > > Effective policy development requires participation from the PDP team members, especially active members responsible for responding to calls for consensus. ICANN staff ensures that meetings are recorded with audio recordings and written transcripts available to participants. The RrSG strongly disagrees that any subset of members should be preparing summaries for ?observers / less active? members to utilize in place of the recordings and transcripts. That information is already available without interpretation by others that could alter the message. > > #8. PDP Plenary or Model PDP > > Since there are no limitations on observers in most PDPs, the RrSG has no objections to allowing individuals to observe to learn more about the subject matter. However, given the demand already placed on PDP leadership and participants, it is an unnecessary burden to ask PDP leadership to hold plenary sessions specifically to educate newcomers on PDP subjects. > > Further, ICANN already offers a number of methods of education on the GNSO policy development process. These tools are already available, and the RrSG questions the need for further resources to be developed in that arena. > > 4.4 Consensus Building ? Incremental Improvements > > #9. Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology for decision making) > > The RrSG supports this improvement. We would suggest that Council and staff meet with PDP leadership at the outset to discuss the consensus categories outlined in each PDP charter and acceptable methods for identifying consensus status. We also suggest providing a basic training to PDP team members on the same. > > #10. Document positions at the outset > > The RrSG generally supports using surveys or other methods to try to find middle ground on issues in order to make the policy development process more efficient. However, the RrSG is concerned that limitations on restating positions be carefully considered and outlined. It would undermine the policy development process to refuse to allow a participant to restate a position during a formal call for consensus when that participant?s knowledge and understanding of the full scope of the issue has changed, based on PDP discussions, since the initial survey on middle ground. > > 4.5 Role of Council as Manager of the PDP ? Incremental Improvements > > #11. Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces > > Adequate, narrow PDP scoping is critical to creating an attainable, realistic work plan. The RrSG recommends that each PDP leadership team engage with Council in a PDP evaluation process following PDP completion. Similar to #16 below, we recommend a standardized summary template be created to provide Council with data to indicate the effectiveness and efficiency the PDP had in achieving its work plan, meeting the scope of the PDP, etc. > > #12. Notification to Council of changes in work plan > > Not only is it important that PDP leadership communicate changes to the work plan and the rationale for such changes, but both the PDP leadership and the Council should be sure to consider the effect the change may have on the totality of the PDP and how do accommodate for the changes. Continually extending a PDP because of work plan changes isn?t acceptable. Further, if work plan changes are necessitated by challenges with the PDP scope, the Council should consider whether the original scope was appropriate and, if not, review the scope for necessary changes in order to ensure the PDP accomplishes the necessary goal(s). > > #13. Review of Chair(s) > > The RrSG is concerned that an anonymous survey could easily be gamed or abused. Instead of an anonymous survey, the RrSG suggests using the monthly reporting (comparing performance to the work plan) in #16 as a better means to ascertain if potential issues exist. Council would then be able to speak with the PDP leadership to determine what has gone off track and why. > > #14. Make better use of existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data gathering, chartering and termination when it is clear that no consensus can be achieved. > > Data and metrics are vitally important and should be a stand-alone item, instead of being lumped with chartering and termination. The DMPM WG made the following observations in its Final Report, which seem still relevant today (see pages 12 & 13, https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48169/dmpm-final-09oct15-en.pdf): > > - Lacking baseline data hampers the understanding of problems which should be a primary rationale for making changes to policy. Therefore, ensuring relevant baseline data as one element guiding the policy process is critical and should be mandated by WGs. > - ... ideally, data gathering and analysis should occur prior to and/or while scoping the issue with the policy development process to follow. Note however, at the working group phase, a group should not be limited in seeking further data and metrics should additional analysis be required, especially when new forms of data may become available. > - When a WG makes recommendations, it should include a policy impact assessment, and recommend suitable metrics to measure the impact. Specifically, implementation of Consensus Policies should ensure post- implementation data is collected to analyze whether or not policy goals are achieved using defined metrics. > > The RrSG, however, also believes that it is important to ensure that WGs do not engage in data gathering exercises for the sake of gathering data. Data gathering should not be used as a fishing expedition. We are concerned, for example, that some in the RPM PDP have used the ?date gathering? requirement as an exercise to try to either 1) delay the progress or the group or 2) test hypotheses that have yet to have any supporting detail. In other words, a data gathering exercise should not be used to test academic or philosophical theories, but rather should be used only where there is at least some evidence or reliable anecdotal data that support the notion of a more comprehensive data collection exercise. > > #15. Independent conflict resolution > > Possible implementation: ICANN org put out a call for expressions of interests seeking volunteer mediators to form a standing panel that could be called upon by PDP WGs if and when needed. > > #16. Criteria for PDP WG Updates > > The RrSG encourages the Council to set the parameters (e.g., timing, content) for PDP WG updates to ensure reporting provides the Council with the information needed to effectively management the policy development process. For example, request monthly data that indicates: (a) which issues contained in the scope are complete and which are not; (b) whether or not the PDP is on track to the work plan; (c) identify roadblocks causing the PDP to miss work plan deadlines; (d) identify resource concerns. Providing such regular reporting will allow the Council to more effectively manage policy development, evaluate timelines and issues, and ensure overall policy work is efficient and effective. > > #17. Resource reporting for PDP WGs > > The RrSG understands that ICANN has not done any sort of resourcing data collection or analysis in the past, but that is expected from the EPDP. The RrSG encourages such reporting and analysis. In order for the Council to effectively prioritize policy development work, one component it needs to understand is the resourcing efforts involved. > > Further general comments/suggestions: > > - The RrSG asks that Council consider the limitations of the PDP process, and its utility in making decisions, versus finding compromise. The PDP excels at identifying issues, convening diverse stakeholders and perspectives, and conducting an analysis of potential solutions. The PDP fails, however, when it is tasked with an either-or proposition, where the implications and views are known and well-established, and where the solutions are not suited for private contracts (unenforceable). In these situations, the Council should prevent SGs and Cs from proposing or initiating PDPs, and instead look for other avenues to advance the work. > > - The RrSG encourages the Council to consider how to determine the right timing for policy development. For example, at times policy development has begun while technical analysis may have been the more appropriate first step (e.g., IRTP-C (Change of Registrant), Across Field Validation (AFAV)). We encourage the Council to consider what issues or information are necessary prior to policy development, and engage those avenues first to ensure policy development is as effective as possible. In addition, there have been times when multiple PDPs are underway and competing for resources. Sometimes PDPs are working on similar issues but working separately and are, therefore, somewhat out of alignment. We encourage the Council to consider competing resources, timing, etc., to ensure that policy development is getting the attention it deserves, is adequately resourced, and is aligned with other ICANN community work to avoid duplication of efforts or competing results. > > __________ > > Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer > > M: +1 503-453-7305 ? Skype: darcy.enyeart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 19:30:02 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:30:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] The NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections Message-ID: Hello PC members Here is a draft NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections. I drafted this and CSG leaders commented on it. We can hopefully get this approved soon. It is a straightforward process. I will share it with NCSG members at the same time to speed up the process. Here is the Google Doc Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCPH Nomination Process of GNSO Chair.rev1 (2).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15433 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Aug 17 11:27:07 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 08:27:07 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Fwd: [Ext] IPC Comments -- GNSO PDP 3.0 In-Reply-To: <1534493262362.30214850.47114656.12500876153@backend.cp20.com> References: <1534493262362.30214850.47114656.12500876153@backend.cp20.com> Message-ID: <844D0D3A-6A27-4465-9E4C-0F03A1617DA2@ferdeline.com> The IPC cautions... > Another danger is that the proportions in the structure of the GNSO Council will also be used to set the proportions for Working Groups, for which they were not intended. This has the ?knock-on? effect of setting and codifying relative levels of influence and importance for the concerns of different stakeholder types. Perhaps we do need to respond to this paper. ?Ayden > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Marika Konings" > Subject: [council] Fwd: [Ext] IPC Comments -- GNSO PDP 3.0 > > Date: 17 August 2018 at 09:46:57 CEST > To: "council at gnso.icann.org" > Reply-To: "Marika Konings" > > For your information. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Brian Scarpelli >> Date: 17 August 2018 at 09:10:36 GMT+2 >> To: "marika.konings at icann.org" >> Subject: [Ext] IPC Comments -- GNSO PDP 3.0 > >> Hi Marika, hope you are well. On behalf of the IPC, I am sending you our constituency?s comments on the GNSO PDP 3.0 paper. If the IPC can do anything further to be of help on this one please just let me know. >> >> [pardon my read receipt! Just want to make sure this email gets to you successfully] >> >> Brian >> >> Brian Scarpelli >> Senior Global Policy Counsel[+1 517-507-1446](mailto:+1%20517-507-1446) | bscarpelli at actonline.org >> ACT | The App Association >> 1401 K St NW (Ste 501) >> Washington, DC 20005 > >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IPC Comment on PDP 3 point 0 - Final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 721906 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Fri Aug 17 17:37:03 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:37:03 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent] SCBO Input In-Reply-To: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> References: <12383AE0-34BB-438F-94C8-DA8C22CD7060@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <3A992933-18E6-4B97-9426-5614F35014CF@benin2point0.org> No comment. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ (Ekue) Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 14 Aug 2018, at 17:41, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Dear all, > > The NCSG needs to provide input to the Council?s Standing Committee on Budget and Operations urgently. > > I have drafted a response in this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VZD5r114eNS94Qh7Is1R9h_k8BXvcfcwFdFDSJK64tU/edit?usp=sharing > > Can you please review and provide feedback today if possible, or tomorrow by the latest. > > Please note, this is not a formal comment opportunity, it will only inform the SCBO?s call for next Monday, whereby the SCBO will be drafting a letter to the GNSO Council. > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 05:49:20 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:49:20 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] The NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, Thanks for managing this, as I would like to get nominated for the GNSO chair election by NCPH, I cannot really comment on the different steps even it is unlikely to be used for this election but I can at least pointfor 2 possible issue: - it doesn't seem the process assume that the NCPH VC may run and factor that in the process accordingly (except removing him for the facilitation if they are running) - for last part of bullet 12/ "If the SGs do not agree on a nominee by the deadline, they will not put forward anyone and inform the GNSO Secretariat that they could not agree on a nomination. The individual SGs then would have the option of supporting the Contracted Party House nominee or any other nomination put forward." this can be confusing as it may mean that SG can go ahead and nominate someone while only the house can do so. better to rephrase that language. Best, Rafik Le ven. 17 ao?t 2018 ? 01:30, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Hello PC members > > Here is a draft NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections. > I drafted this and CSG leaders commented on it. We can hopefully get this > approved soon. It is a straightforward process. I will share it with NCSG > members at the same time to speed up the process. > > Here is the Google Doc Link: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Best > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Mon Aug 20 14:13:47 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:13:47 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] The NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3341A3DC-CB65-49B6-A73F-E8D512380256@benin2point0.org> Dear Farzaneh, Thanks for drafting this. It looks good to me. Nevertheless, I have one question: To what extent are we liable to this document (let's say MoU) in the future? Will it be bound to our respective charters? What will prevent both the new chairs (CSG and NCSG) to try and elaborate a new one just before the next election? I believe it is a live document and amendements are always permissible, however; I wish we have a statement that determines how amendement process should be undertaken and how this is connected to our charter. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ (Ekue) Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 16 Aug 2018, at 17:30, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hello PC members > > Here is a draft NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections. > I drafted this and CSG leaders commented on it. We can hopefully get this approved soon. It is a straightforward process. I will share it with NCSG members at the same time to speed up the process. > > Here is the Google Doc Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Best > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 14:51:20 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:51:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] The NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections In-Reply-To: <3341A3DC-CB65-49B6-A73F-E8D512380256@benin2point0.org> References: <3341A3DC-CB65-49B6-A73F-E8D512380256@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi This has no bearing on our charter nor does it prevent the future leaders to re open the issue and discuss again but I suggest it won't be before each election. Because it is supposed to bring some certainty as to how nomination should and selection between the two stakeholder group should take place. Amendments should be made if the process doesn't work and needs clarification. In case there is any conflict between this document and GNSO procedures, ICANN Bylaws or NCSG charter, they will prevail. On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:13 AM Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear Farzaneh, > > Thanks for drafting this. It looks good to me. > > Nevertheless, I have one question: To what extent are we liable to this > document (let's say MoU) in the future? Will it be bound to our respective > charters? What will prevent both the new chairs (CSG and NCSG) to try and > elaborate a new one just before the next election? > > I believe it is a live document and amendements are always permissible, > however; I wish we have a statement that determines how amendement process > should be undertaken and how this is connected to our charter. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > (Ekue) Farell FOLLY > NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > On 16 Aug 2018, at 17:30, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hello PC members > > Here is a draft NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections. > I drafted this and CSG leaders commented on it. We can hopefully get this > approved soon. It is a straightforward process. I will share it with NCSG > members at the same time to speed up the process. > > Here is the Google Doc Link: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Best > > > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 05:19:42 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:19:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the IANA Naming Function Review ("IFR") Message-ID: Hi all, We have an appointment to make to the IANA Naming Functions Review by the 28th August (please check attachment). In term of process, I propose to make the call for candidates asap and keep it simple: - Use the proposed template for the call and application with small changes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdbduoGXxyCUBVpxlAwtPbfgzOfNudi9H84Pjwpw5kM/edit?usp=sharing - Call should be issued in 22nd August - Deadline for applications is the 26th August. - that gave us 2 days to make selection within the NCSG PC. this appointment needs some familiar with IANA functions and also with the work of CWG. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Request for Appointment - IFR.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 336673 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 05:41:38 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 22:41:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the IANA Naming Function Review ("IFR") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had a cursory review and am ok with the call. Farzaneh On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:20 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > We have an appointment to make to the IANA Naming Functions Review by the > 28th August (please check attachment). In term of process, I propose to > make the call for candidates asap and keep it simple: > > - Use the proposed template for the call and application with small > changes > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdbduoGXxyCUBVpxlAwtPbfgzOfNudi9H84Pjwpw5kM/edit?usp=sharing > - Call should be issued in 22nd August > - Deadline for applications is the 26th August. > - that gave us 2 days to make selection within the NCSG PC. > > this appointment needs some familiar with IANA functions and also with the > work of CWG. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Aug 22 15:02:22 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:02:22 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the IANA Naming Function Review ("IFR") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks. as there was no objection, I will send the call in the coming hours to NCSG list in order to initiate the process. Best, Rafik Le mar. 21 ao?t 2018 ? 11:42, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > I had a cursory review and am ok with the call. > > Farzaneh > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:20 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We have an appointment to make to the IANA Naming Functions Review by >> the 28th August (please check attachment). In term of process, I propose to >> make the call for candidates asap and keep it simple: >> >> - Use the proposed template for the call and application with small >> changes >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdbduoGXxyCUBVpxlAwtPbfgzOfNudi9H84Pjwpw5kM/edit?usp=sharing >> - Call should be issued in 22nd August >> - Deadline for applications is the 26th August. >> - that gave us 2 days to make selection within the NCSG PC. >> >> this appointment needs some familiar with IANA functions and also with >> the work of CWG. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 14:25:48 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:25:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Nomination of Rafik for GNSO chair Message-ID: Hi Rafik is elected for another term to GNSO and We should agree here on putting his name forward to csg as the NCPH nominee for gnso chair. We have no process for this internally but I think we can agree on this at the pc announce on the list and see if there are objections. For the moment we can 1. ask rafik if he can confirm he wants to run 2. Ask him for a statement of interest Best Farzaneh -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 14:32:35 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:32:35 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Nomination of Rafik for GNSO chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, thanks. I fully agree with this proposal - let's start as you suggested. Warm regards, Tatiana On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 13:26, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi > > Rafik is elected for another term to GNSO and We should agree here on > putting his name forward to csg as the NCPH nominee for gnso chair. We have > no process for this internally but I think we can agree on this at the pc > announce on the list and see if there are objections. > > For the moment we can > > 1. ask rafik if he can confirm he wants to run > > 2. Ask him for a statement of interest > > > Best > > Farzaneh > > > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 15:24:24 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:24:24 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Nomination of Rafik for GNSO chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8894C6E9-37DA-445C-8A43-F82285EEEF8E@gmail.com> +1 ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Aug 23, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Hi Farzaneh, > thanks. I fully agree with this proposal - let's start as you suggested. > Warm regards, > Tatiana > >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 13:26, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Hi >> >> Rafik is elected for another term to GNSO and We should agree here on putting his name forward to csg as the NCPH nominee for gnso chair. We have no process for this internally but I think we can agree on this at the pc announce on the list and see if there are objections. >> >> For the moment we can >> >> 1. ask rafik if he can confirm he wants to run >> >> 2. Ask him for a statement of interest >> >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 19:16:24 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:16:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] The NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: <3341A3DC-CB65-49B6-A73F-E8D512380256@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi everybody I have made the necessary changes in the document addressing the concerns. Mainly added clarifications about when the vice chair is running for chair and that the NCPH should collectively put the nomination forward and no stakeholder group can do so individually. If no objection, I will send this document to CSG tomorrow. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing Farzaneh On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:51 AM farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi > > This has no bearing on our charter nor does it prevent the future leaders > to re open the issue and discuss again but I suggest it won't be before > each election. Because it is supposed to bring some certainty as to how > nomination should and selection between the two stakeholder group should > take place. Amendments should be made if the process doesn't work and needs > clarification. In case there is any conflict between this document and GNSO > procedures, ICANN Bylaws or NCSG charter, they will prevail. > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:13 AM Farell FOLLY > wrote: > >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> Thanks for drafting this. It looks good to me. >> >> Nevertheless, I have one question: To what extent are we liable to this >> document (let's say MoU) in the future? Will it be bound to our respective >> charters? What will prevent both the new chairs (CSG and NCSG) to try and >> elaborate a new one just before the next election? >> >> I believe it is a live document and amendements are always permissible, >> however; I wish we have a statement that determines how amendement process >> should be undertaken and how this is connected to our charter. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY >> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 16 Aug 2018, at 17:30, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> Hello PC members >> >> Here is a draft NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections. >> I drafted this and CSG leaders commented on it. We can hopefully get this >> approved soon. It is a straightforward process. I will share it with NCSG >> members at the same time to speed up the process. >> >> Here is the Google Doc Link: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> 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: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 19:31:20 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:31:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. Farzaneh ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Emily Barabas Dear Farzaneh, We are writing to let you know that the public comment period for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been extended. Public comments will now be accepted through *26 September 2018*. Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the relevant members of your group? Best regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) *From: *Nathalie Peregrine *Date: *Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 *To: *farzaneh badii *Cc: *"jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Steve Chan , Julie Hedlund , Emily Barabas < emily.barabas at icann.org>, Maryam Bakoshi , " gnso-secs at icann.org" *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment Dear Farzaneh, We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public Comment [icann.org] . We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to the success of this PDP. *1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG* The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to the existing *Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains* [gnso.icann.org] policy recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. *2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment* The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to modifications to those positions as a result of community input. In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were generally agreed to by members that participated in the different Work Tracks, support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall Working Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues its Final Report. Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we may fully consider it in our further deliberations. Best regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 19:46:42 2018 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:46:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Super!!!! We could meet wednesday or thursday next week if you think a call would help. I can send a doodle poll if you are interested. E. ? On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. > > Farzaneh > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Emily Barabas > > > Dear Farzaneh, > > > > We are writing to let you know that the public comment period > > for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been > extended. Public comments will now be accepted through *26 September 2018*. > Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the relevant members > of your group? > > > > Best regards, > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) > > > > > > *From: *Nathalie Peregrine > *Date: *Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 > *To: *farzaneh badii > *Cc: *"jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" , Cheryl > Langdon-Orr , Steve Chan , > Julie Hedlund , Emily Barabas < > emily.barabas at icann.org>, Maryam Bakoshi , " > gnso-secs at icann.org" > *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public > Comment > > > > Dear Farzaneh, > > > > We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the > community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to > consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 > Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and > implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached > an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public > Comment [icann.org] > . > We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide > feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, > options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to > the success of this PDP. > > *1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG* > > The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was > chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process > (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to > the existing *Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains* > [gnso.icann.org] > policy > recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant > Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] > > dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the > GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and > ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those > policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New > gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy > recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work > Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its > charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment > periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes > material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, > focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than > the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. > > > > *2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment* > > The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s > deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential > options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the > Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the > thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and > improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other > Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of > consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The > Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of > consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations > contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the > unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of > support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community > on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early > of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to > modifications to those positions as a result of community input. > > > > In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were generally > agreed to by members that participated in the different Work Tracks, > support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall Working > Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive > positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in > this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks > is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by > the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. > > > > After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, > the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary > recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as > a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released > by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that > is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at > the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues > its Final Report. > > > > Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any > comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to > provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the > report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics > and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every > single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, > please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we > may fully consider it in our further deliberations. > > > > Best regards, > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine > > Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > > Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > > > > > > > > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Aug 23 21:19:35 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:19:35 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35D10181-556A-429A-8C6C-CFD44FE8A094@ferdeline.com> This is a welcomed relief. But we do need to get a comment together and share a draft on the NCSG-Discuss list as soon as we can. I suggest that we give our members at least two weeks to comment on this issue, and the Policy Committee at least one week, given the complexity of this issue and the 300+ pages of material that need to be reviewed. Best wishes, Ayden > On 23 Aug 2018, at 18:46, Elsa S wrote: > > Super!!!! We could meet wednesday or thursday next week if you think a call would help. I can send a doodle poll if you are interested. > > E. > ? > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > >> we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Emily Barabas >> >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> We are writing to let you know that the [public comment period](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en) for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been extended. Public comments will now be accepted through 26 September 2018. Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the relevant members of your group? >> >> Best regards, >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >> >> From: Nathalie Peregrine >> Date: Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 >> To: farzaneh badii >> Cc: "jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Steve Chan , Julie Hedlund , Emily Barabas , Maryam Bakoshi , "gnso-secs at icann.org" >> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment >> >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached an important milestone by publishing its [Initial Report for Public Comment [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_gtld-2Dsubsequent-2Dprocedures-2Dinitial-2D2018-2D07-2D03-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=4gYyCwhtEI98RlWT6m_3FasU_W94CPJVbYvXvdaDxws&s=TwT7TfmDQ6Na2XFI7TKEFTn4pi5z-7JSXypjqAP6rRE&e=). We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to the success of this PDP. >> >> 1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG >> >> The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to the existing[Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains [gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_new-2Dgtlds_pdp-2Ddec05-2Dfr-2Dparta-2D08aug07.htm&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=4gYyCwhtEI98RlWT6m_3FasU_W94CPJVbYvXvdaDxws&s=fAYAOAlC7DqbvB0WyYMiIOXAkUC6kzqPgR62nsJhHCQ&e=)policy recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final[Applicant Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_agb&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=4gYyCwhtEI98RlWT6m_3FasU_W94CPJVbYvXvdaDxws&s=iK3CVAc8mCe_CJRGZTBv2B_bDcoekw7F1Tg2uNLpbsI&e=) dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. >> >> 2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment >> >> The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to modifications to those positions as a result of community input. >> >> In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were generally agreed to by members that participated in the different Work Tracks, support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall Working Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. >> >> After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues its Final Report. >> >> Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we may fully consider it in our further deliberations. >> >> Best regards, >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >> >> 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=) > > -- > > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 01:54:59 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:54:59 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 Message-ID: Hi As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the group) So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. Farzaneh -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Aug 24 01:58:04 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 22:58:04 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7BE2D12C-37BB-4261-AB30-B221879D9B25@ferdeline.com> Hi Farzi, When did we agree this? I had thought that there was widespread support among the NCSG for having the intercessional annually. Best wishes, Ayden > On 24 Aug 2018, at 00:54, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi > > As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the group) > > So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. > > Farzaneh > -- > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:12:37 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:12:37 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works with CSG when needed outside that meeting. Best, Rafik Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Hi > > As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional > meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know > their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it > should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the > group) > > So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no intersessional > in 2019. > > > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:13:49 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:13:49 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Nomination of Rafik for GNSO chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, thanks for initiating this, I am happy to run and tempt my chance. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 23 ao?t 2018 ? 20:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Hi > > Rafik is elected for another term to GNSO and We should agree here on > putting his name forward to csg as the NCPH nominee for gnso chair. We have > no process for this internally but I think we can agree on this at the pc > announce on the list and see if there are objections. > > For the moment we can > > 1. ask rafik if he can confirm he wants to run > > 2. Ask him for a statement of interest > > > Best > > Farzaneh > > > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:14:55 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:14:55 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Nomination of Rafik for GNSO chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC3A60C-11C8-4907-8D05-353E6321FBF5@gmail.com> We will all work to make that chance the closest to reality as possible!!! > On 23 Aug 2018, at 20:13, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi Farzaneh, > > thanks for initiating this, I am happy to run and tempt my chance. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 23 ao?t 2018 ? 20:26, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : > Hi > > Rafik is elected for another term to GNSO and We should agree here on putting his name forward to csg as the NCPH nominee for gnso chair. We have no process for this internally but I think we can agree on this at the pc announce on the list and see if there are objections. > > For the moment we can > > 1. ask rafik if he can confirm he wants to run > > 2. Ask him for a statement of interest > > > Best > > Farzaneh > > > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:17:15 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:17:15 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] The NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: <3341A3DC-CB65-49B6-A73F-E8D512380256@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, Thanks, the process looks ok to me. Best, Rafik Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 01:16, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Hi everybody > > I have made the necessary changes in the document addressing the concerns. > Mainly added clarifications about when the vice chair is running for chair > and that the NCPH should collectively put the nomination forward and no > stakeholder group can do so individually. > > If no objection, I will send this document to CSG tomorrow. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing > > Farzaneh > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:51 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> This has no bearing on our charter nor does it prevent the future leaders >> to re open the issue and discuss again but I suggest it won't be before >> each election. Because it is supposed to bring some certainty as to how >> nomination should and selection between the two stakeholder group should >> take place. Amendments should be made if the process doesn't work and needs >> clarification. In case there is any conflict between this document and GNSO >> procedures, ICANN Bylaws or NCSG charter, they will prevail. >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:13 AM Farell FOLLY >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Farzaneh, >>> >>> Thanks for drafting this. It looks good to me. >>> >>> Nevertheless, I have one question: To what extent are we liable to this >>> document (let's say MoU) in the future? Will it be bound to our respective >>> charters? What will prevent both the new chairs (CSG and NCSG) to try and >>> elaborate a new one just before the next election? >>> >>> I believe it is a live document and amendements are always permissible, >>> however; I wish we have a statement that determines how amendement process >>> should be undertaken and how this is connected to our charter. >>> >>> @__f_f__ >>> >>> Best Regards >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY >>> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 17:30, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello PC members >>> >>> Here is a draft NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections. >>> I drafted this and CSG leaders commented on it. We can hopefully get >>> this approved soon. It is a straightforward process. I will share it with >>> NCSG members at the same time to speed up the process. >>> >>> Here is the Google Doc Link: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Aug 24 02:20:03 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 23:20:03 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We have this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. > I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works with CSG when needed outside that meeting. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > >> Hi >> >> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the group) >> >> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. >> >> Farzaneh >> -- >> >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:27:42 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:27:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh, that is good for us. I touched base few days ago with Elsa and Bruna regarding the status of our draft and we are currently progressing. I think Kathy is also helping for the review and Robin will be consulted too. as reminder we organized few weeks ago a NCSG webinar ( https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Webinars) on the report presented by Robin where she highlighted the most important and relevant topics for us, I advice everyone to listen to it. while the report is 300 pages (there are appendices etc), it can be easier to listen to the webinar and check the spreadsheet made by the WG with all the recommendations and questions organized by topic. Best, Rafik Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 01:31, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. > > Farzaneh > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Emily Barabas > > > Dear Farzaneh, > > > > We are writing to let you know that the public comment period > > for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been > extended. Public comments will now be accepted through *26 September 2018*. > Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the relevant members > of your group? > > > > Best regards, > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) > > > > > > *From: *Nathalie Peregrine > *Date: *Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 > *To: *farzaneh badii > *Cc: *"jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" , Cheryl > Langdon-Orr , Steve Chan , > Julie Hedlund , Emily Barabas < > emily.barabas at icann.org>, Maryam Bakoshi , " > gnso-secs at icann.org" > *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public > Comment > > > > Dear Farzaneh, > > > > We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the > community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to > consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 > Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and > implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached > an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public > Comment [icann.org] > . > We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide > feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, > options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to > the success of this PDP. > > *1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG* > > The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was > chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process > (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to > the existing *Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains* > [gnso.icann.org] > policy > recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant > Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] > > dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the > GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and > ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those > policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New > gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy > recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work > Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its > charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment > periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes > material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, > focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than > the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. > > > > *2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment* > > The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s > deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential > options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the > Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the > thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and > improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other > Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of > consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The > Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of > consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations > contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the > unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of > support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community > on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early > of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to > modifications to those positions as a result of community input. > > > > In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were generally > agreed to by members that participated in the different Work Tracks, > support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall Working > Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive > positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in > this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks > is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by > the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. > > > > After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, > the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary > recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as > a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released > by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that > is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at > the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues > its Final Report. > > > > Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any > comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to > provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the > report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics > and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every > single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, > please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we > may fully consider it in our further deliberations. > > > > Best regards, > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine > > Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > > Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:29:31 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:29:31 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe issue is still there and make it impossible to make any substantial change in format or even topics. Best, Rafik Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We have > this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We > won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Farzaneh, > > yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the > objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such > meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. > I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works > with CSG when needed outside that meeting. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> Hi >> >> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional >> meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know >> their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it >> should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the >> group) >> >> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no intersessional >> in 2019. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Aug 24 02:35:03 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 23:35:03 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think we should discuss this with the entire membership before we rule it out. I think the intersessional has value. It was not the best this year, but we invited the wrong people. The Iceland intersessional was extremely productive. We should return to that format. And discuss who to invite. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe issue is still there and make it impossible to make any substantial change in format or even topics. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We have this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Farzaneh, >>> >>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. >>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works with CSG when needed outside that meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the group) >>>> >>>> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:42:00 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:42:00 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since the beginning not just the last ones. I am also cautious to think that is "people" issue as it is usually the easy way to ignore other causes and problems. again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional including iceland. even a topic like Board seat election was only fixed this year and the work done by email and with a small group. I think it is a good time to review. Best, Rafik Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:35, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I think we should discuss this with the entire membership before we rule > it out. I think the intersessional has value. It was not the best this > year, but we invited the wrong people. The Iceland intersessional was > extremely productive. We should return to that format. And discuss who to > invite. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe issue is still > there and make it impossible to make any substantial change in format or > even topics. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:20, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We have >> this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We >> won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the >> objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such >> meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. >> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works >> with CSG when needed outside that meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> Hi >>> >>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional >>> meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know >>> their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it >>> should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the >>> group) >>> >>> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no >>> intersessional in 2019. >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Aug 24 02:46:23 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 23:46:23 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The community has suffered cut after cut and we have been directly impacted. We have next to no budget for capacity building this fiscal year, and CROP has become useless, as it can only be used for ICANN-sponsored events and ICANN refuses to provide a list of them. And we are about to throw away $100,000 that actually was allocated to us for an intersessional? This is crazy; we should improve it, make it work. And I definitely think we should be consulting with members to develop our position here. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:42, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since the beginning not just the last ones. I am also cautious to think that is "people" issue as it is usually the easy way to ignore other causes and problems. > again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional including iceland. even a topic like Board seat election was only fixed this year and the work done by email and with a small group. > I think it is a good time to review. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:35, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> I think we should discuss this with the entire membership before we rule it out. I think the intersessional has value. It was not the best this year, but we invited the wrong people. The Iceland intersessional was extremely productive. We should return to that format. And discuss who to invite. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe issue is still there and make it impossible to make any substantial change in format or even topics. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We have this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>> >>>>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. >>>>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works with CSG when needed outside that meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the group) >>>>>> >>>>>> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 07:03:22 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:03:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ayden, I had the impression that we had said in our comment on budget that we do the intersessional every "other" year. Based on the thread below, which Rafik, Tatiana, Milton had supported every other year and mentioned it. But seems like you decided to delete the paragraph altogether and I did not personally respond to add it back in and support every other year. Is ICANN giving us 100,000 USD to go to events that we have done so well so far? RightsCon, IGF etc? No. It is throwing bad money after bad. Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget it might be possible. No one on post intersessional mailing list was meaningfully active, responding to staff questions and commenting (other than you). Rarely there were any substantive comments that added to the report etc. And we spent a lot of time planning the last year's intersessional but it does not get any better. We have made more progress procedural wise, via email than we have done during these meetings. Also we have to always put out fire in these meetings. It is exhausting. I won't be chair anymore so I won't even be obliged to go but I have a tip. as long as those who take the survey and say it was great but don't even weigh in on simple questions on mailing list, are not involved with working group to have an understanding of dynamics, do not have a basic understanding of NCPH and do not try to understand, then I think intersessional is just good for some to travel. For others it's a lot of work. Intersessional is not a learning opportunity. It's a battlefield. Lets bring it on every other year than facing it every year with only a very small number contributing and a very large number just traveling (on both stakeholder groups). Best Farzaneh ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ayden F?rdeline Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget To: Rafik Dammak Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is , Milton Mueller < milton at gatech.edu> Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, Rafik; I've replied directly and done my best to resolve your concerns. In particular please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 (constituency travellers). I'll put your question in #6 to Xavier on Monday when the [GNSO Council] Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has its next call with Finance. I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as perhaps it is better to be silent here rather than to praise something which may not have widespread support. This year's Intersessional was a trainwreck but I do think this is a disaster we have to own. Last year's Intersessional was brilliant. What was the difference? It wasn't content (as you said Rafik, the content rarely changes), but I do think it was the participant mix. Our 'side' was too silent at this year's meeting and we didn't have enough strong voices to counter the perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I think back to Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy and others engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see enough of that this year; I cannot even think of any action items that came out of the forum. With the suggestion circulating (at least during the Council's Strategic Planning Session) that we may need to go down from 3 to 2 ICANN public meetings per year for budgetary reasons, and may want to tie a Council meeting in with the GDD Summit, I am reluctant to relinquish any support allocated to us that has made the core budget. But perhaps we could advocate tying the Intersessional in with the GDD Summit, an idea floated last year? I could see real benefits to that; on some issues, the contracted parties are our allies... Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made the point in this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this community support, because I feel very strongly that to make small cuts here which impact us, without tackling structural issues where the real costs lie, is the wrong approach. But how on earth could we expect ICANN to approve some of them? Some which 'we' submitted are genuinely embarrassing and would be an inappropriate use of funds if approved. I have not said anything on the main mailing list BUT ones like this, i.e. an NCUC board game , should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our reputation. Their submission was an Executive decision made without public consultation on the discussion list. I don't want this to sound like an attack against anyone, as that is not my intention, but I think we need to do some kind of internal reflection before submitting requests. This request for a board game will be seen by the entire community, will be mocked, and let's be real, won't be approved (nor should it!). Why do this to our reputation? Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ayden, thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow us to work on it without pressure, about the intercessional which is a separate topic not necessarily related to the budget, I am for an evaluation and assessment. I am not that convinced that issues were a matter of planning. The content is almost the same every year, just with small changes of few topics. I think after 5 years or more, it is a good time to review and think about improvement. I believe our CSG friends will be open and welcome that. Organizing it every other year can provide that opportunity and possibility for real change. I will review the budget and add my comments there. Best, Rafik 2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, partially because of > insufficient planning on our part, as well as the wrong delegates being in > attendance. But I do think the concept itself is a good one and one which > should continue. I am happy to remove this paragraph from the document > altogether, however, if we do not have a common agreement on their value. I > don't think it ranks among our most pressing concerns! > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina > wrote: > > I am one of those who questions the value of the intersessionals. > > I won't support continuing them every year. Every other year is a > compromise I can accept. > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Ayden > > I?ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate you on doing so > much work to go through the budget and prepare an intelligent evaluation of > it. > > I agree with most of the comments but propose a few minor amendments here > and there, which I will put onto the Google doc using suggest mode. > > The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for continued > intersessionals. I don?t think there is consensus on that and in fact after > the last one I heard several people who supported them question their value > or frequency. A good middle ground might be to have them once every other > year. > > > > Anyway, I?ll enter my comments on the doc. > > > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org/ > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Ayden F?rdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com > ] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM > *To:* ncsg-pc ; Mueller, > Milton L ; crg at ISOC-CR.ORG; > paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM; Corinne Cath > > *Subject:* [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 > budget. This took quite some time to comb through, and I might have missed > some things. So before I share this comment on the main discussion list and > face the inevitable wrath of criticism and dislike, I thought I might share > it here to get some initial feedback. I have also cc'd in a few other > people who might not be on this mailing list but who I think might be able > to offer some constructive edits on its contents: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Many thanks for your help, > > > > Ayden > > > > P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's because I copied and > pasted it from an email you sent to the NCSG list last year re: our Reserve > Fund comment. I hope this is okay. Thanks! > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc Farzaneh On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:46 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > The community has suffered cut after cut and we have been directly > impacted. We have next to no budget for capacity building this fiscal year, > and CROP has become useless, as it can only be used for ICANN-sponsored > events and ICANN refuses to provide a list of them. And we are about to > throw away $100,000 that actually was allocated to us for an > intersessional? This is crazy; we should improve it, make it work. And I > definitely think we should be consulting with members to develop our > position here. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:42, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi, > > I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since the beginning not > just the last ones. I am also cautious to think that is "people" issue as > it is usually the easy way to ignore other causes and problems. > again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional including > iceland. even a topic like Board seat election was only fixed this year and > the work done by email and with a small group. > I think it is a good time to review. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:35, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I think we should discuss this with the entire membership before we rule >> it out. I think the intersessional has value. It was not the best this >> year, but we invited the wrong people. The Iceland intersessional was >> extremely productive. We should return to that format. And discuss who to >> invite. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe issue is still >> there and make it impossible to make any substantial change in format or >> even topics. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:20, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We have >>> this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We >>> won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Farzaneh, >>> >>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the >>> objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such >>> meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. >>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works >>> with CSG when needed outside that meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii >>> a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional >>>> meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know >>>> their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it >>>> should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the >>>> group) >>>> >>>> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no >>>> intersessional in 2019. >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Aug 24 11:50:11 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:50:11 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441BD8AB-88D5-4C45-AACF-D4EC16947CCE@ferdeline.com> Hi, There was also an extensive discussion on the Google Doc when the comment was drafted, and there was significant support from NCSG members for an annual intersessional. Yes, there were some objections raised, which is why our comment was silent on the future of the intersessional. I do note that participation is optional and no one is forced to attend the intersessional if they do not consider it to be a productive use of their time. > Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget it might be possible. That won?t happen. What will happen is this $100,000 that won?t be spent will be presented as an operational efficiency, as though ICANN staff have made some great sacrifice to replenish the reserve fund. We saw that happen with the cuts to CROP; it is being presented as though the spend on staff travel has decreased, when really, a good chunk of the decrease in spending has come from a reduction in community support. No intersessional won?t stop the BC or IPC from lobbying ICANN staff; they are often in DC or Los Angeles. It will hurt the NCSG however. I would oppose an intersessional that was anything like this year?s one; we need to think carefully about who we are inviting, and not just inviting those in leadership positions. I think we should be allocating the 21 slots as a stakeholder group and bringing in the right max of active participants. Best wishes, Ayden > On 24 Aug 2018, at 06:03, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Ayden, > > I had the impression that we had said in our comment on budget that we do the intersessional every "other" year. Based on the thread below, which Rafik, Tatiana, Milton had supported every other year and mentioned it. But seems like you decided to delete the paragraph altogether and I did not personally respond to add it back in and support every other year. > > Is ICANN giving us 100,000 USD to go to events that we have done so well so far? RightsCon, IGF etc? No. It is throwing bad money after bad. Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget it might be possible. > > No one on post intersessional mailing list was meaningfully active, responding to staff questions and commenting (other than you). Rarely there were any substantive comments that added to the report etc. And we spent a lot of time planning the last year's intersessional but it does not get any better. We have made more progress procedural wise, via email than we have done during these meetings. Also we have to always put out fire in these meetings. It is exhausting. I won't be chair anymore so I won't even be obliged to go but I have a tip. as long as those who take the survey and say it was great but don't even weigh in on simple questions on mailing list, are not involved with working group to have an understanding of dynamics, do not have a basic understanding of NCPH and do not try to understand, then I think intersessional is just good for some to travel. For others it's a lot of work. Intersessional is not a learning opportunity. It's a battlefield. Lets bring it on every other year than facing it every year with only a very small number contributing and a very large number just traveling (on both stakeholder groups). > > Best > > Farzaneh > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Ayden F?rdeline > Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget > To: Rafik Dammak > Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is , Milton Mueller > > Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, Rafik; I've replied directly and done my best to resolve your concerns. In particular please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 (constituency travellers). I'll put your question in #6 to Xavier on Monday when the [GNSO Council] Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has its next call with Finance. > > I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as perhaps it is better to be silent here rather than to praise something which may not have widespread support. This year's Intersessional was a trainwreck but I do think this is a disaster we have to own. Last year's Intersessional was brilliant. What was the difference? It wasn't content (as you said Rafik, the content rarely changes), but I do think it was the participant mix. Our 'side' was too silent at this year's meeting and we didn't have enough strong voices to counter the perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I think back to Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy and others engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see enough of that this year; I cannot even think of any action items that came out of the forum. With the suggestion circulating (at least during the Council's Strategic Planning Session) that we may need to go down from 3 to 2 ICANN public meetings per year for budgetary reasons, and may want to tie a Council meeting in with the GDD Summit, I am reluctant to relinquish any support allocated to us that has made the core budget. But perhaps we could advocate tying the Intersessional in with the GDD Summit, an idea floated last year? I could see real benefits to that; on some issues, the contracted parties are our allies... > > Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made the point in this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this community support, because I feel very strongly that to make small cuts here which impact us, without tackling structural issues where the real costs lie, is the wrong approach. But how on earth could we expect ICANN to approve some of them? Some which 'we' submitted are genuinely embarrassing and would be an inappropriate use of funds if approved. I have not said anything on the main mailing list BUT ones like this, i.e. an [NCUC board game](https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2018-February/008789.html), should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our reputation. Their submission was an Executive decision made without public consultation on the discussion list. I don't want this to sound like an attack against anyone, as that is not my intention, but I think we need to do some kind of internal reflection before submitting requests. This request for a board game will be seen by the entire community, will be mocked, and let's be real, won't be approved (nor should it!). Why do this to our reputation? > > Ayden > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow us to work on it without pressure, >> about the intercessional which is a separate topic not necessarily related to the budget, I am for an evaluation and assessment. I am not that convinced that issues were a matter of planning. The content is almost the same every year, just with small changes of few topics. I think after 5 years or more, it is a good time to review and think about improvement. I believe our CSG friends will be open and welcome that. Organizing it every other year can provide that opportunity and possibility for real change. >> >> I will review the budget and add my comments there. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, partially because of insufficient planning on our part, as well as the wrong delegates being in attendance. But I do think the concept itself is a good one and one which should continue. I am happy to remove this paragraph from the document altogether, however, if we do not have a common agreement on their value. I don't think it ranks among our most pressing concerns! >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> >>>> I am one of those who questions the value of the intersessionals. >>>> >>>> I won't support continuing them every year. Every other year is a compromise I can accept. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> I?ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate you on doing so much work to go through the budget and prepare an intelligent evaluation of it. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with most of the comments but propose a few minor amendments here and there, which I will put onto the Google doc using suggest mode. >>>>> >>>>> The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for continued intersessionals. I don?t think there is consensus on that and in fact after the last one I heard several people who supported them question their value or frequency. A good middle ground might be to have them once every other year. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I?ll enter my comments on the doc. >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>> >>>>> Professor, [School of Public Policy](http://spp.gatech.edu/) >>>>> >>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>> >>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>> >>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>> >>>>> From: Ayden F?rdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM >>>>> To: ncsg-pc [](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is); Mueller, Milton L [](mailto:milton at gatech.edu); crg at ISOC-CR.ORG; paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM; Corinne Cath [](mailto:corinnecath at gmail.com) >>>>> Subject: [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget. This took quite some time to comb through, and I might have missed some things. So before I share this comment on the main discussion list and face the inevitable wrath of criticism and dislike, I thought I might share it here to get some initial feedback. I have also cc'd in a few other people who might not be on this mailing list but who I think might be able to offer some constructive edits on its contents: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks for your help, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's because I copied and pasted it from an email you sent to the NCSG list last year re: our Reserve Fund comment. I hope this is okay. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:46 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> The community has suffered cut after cut and we have been directly impacted. We have next to no budget for capacity building this fiscal year, and CROP has become useless, as it can only be used for ICANN-sponsored events and ICANN refuses to provide a list of them. And we are about to throw away $100,000 that actually was allocated to us for an intersessional? This is crazy; we should improve it, make it work. And I definitely think we should be consulting with members to develop our position here. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:42, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since the beginning not just the last ones. I am also cautious to think that is "people" issue as it is usually the easy way to ignore other causes and problems. >>> again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional including iceland. even a topic like Board seat election was only fixed this year and the work done by email and with a small group. >>> I think it is a good time to review. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:35, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> I think we should discuss this with the entire membership before we rule it out. I think the intersessional has value. It was not the best this year, but we invited the wrong people. The Iceland intersessional was extremely productive. We should return to that format. And discuss who to invite. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe issue is still there and make it impossible to make any substantial change in format or even topics. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We have this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. >>>>>>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works with CSG when needed outside that meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the group) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Aug 24 15:12:20 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:12:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: <441BD8AB-88D5-4C45-AACF-D4EC16947CCE@ferdeline.com> References: <441BD8AB-88D5-4C45-AACF-D4EC16947CCE@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I have to say that the last intercessional was excellent, and we got a lot done. Earlier ones had been much less successful, and I think coloured our responses.? I know we are all busy, but I think we are asking for trouble in the GNSO review if we lose the momentum established under Heather's chairmanship (I would even perhaps invite her back to chair, as she invited Jonathan). Stephanie On 2018-08-24 04:50, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > There was also an extensive discussion on the Google Doc when the > comment was drafted, and there was significant support from NCSG > members for an annual intersessional. Yes, there were some objections > raised, which is why our comment was silent on the future of the > intersessional. I do note that participation is optional and no one is > forced to attend the intersessional if they do not consider it to be a > productive use of their time. > >> Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget it >> might be possible. > > That won?t happen. > > What will happen is this $100,000 that won?t be spent will be > presented as an operational efficiency, as though ICANN staff have > made some great sacrifice to replenish the reserve fund. We saw that > happen with the cuts to CROP; it is being presented as though the > spend on staff travel has decreased, when really, a good chunk of the > decrease in spending has come from a reduction in community support. > > No intersessional won?t stop the BC or IPC from lobbying ICANN staff; > they are often in DC or Los Angeles. It will hurt the NCSG however. > > I would oppose an intersessional that was anything like this year?s > one; we need to think carefully about who we are inviting, and not > just inviting those in leadership positions. I think we should be > allocating the 21 slots as a stakeholder group and bringing in the > right max of active participants. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > >> On 24 Aug 2018, at 06:03, farzaneh badii > > wrote: >> >> Ayden, >> >> I had the impression that we had said in our comment on budget?that >> we do the intersessional?every "other" year. Based on the thread >> below, which Rafik, Tatiana, Milton had supported every other year? >> and mentioned it. But seems like you? decided to delete the paragraph >> altogether and I did not personally respond to add it back in and >> support every other year. >> >> Is ICANN giving us 100,000 USD to go to events that we have done so >> well so far? RightsCon, IGF etc? No. It is throwing bad money after >> bad. Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core >> budget it might be possible. >> >> No one on post?intersessional?mailing list was meaningfully active,? >> ?responding to staff questions and commenting (other than you). >> Rarely there were any substantive comments that added to the report >> etc. And we spent a lot of time planning the last year's >> intersessional??but it does not get any better. We have made more >> progress procedural wise, via email than we have? done during these >> meetings. Also we have to always put out fire in these meetings. It >> is exhausting. I won't be chair anymore so I won't even be obliged to >> go but I have a tip.? as long as those who take the survey and say it >> was great but don't even weigh in on simple questions on mailing >> list, are not involved with working group to have an understanding of >> dynamics, do not have a basic understanding of NCPH and do not try to >> understand, then I think intersessional?is just good for some to >> travel. For others it's a lot of work. Intersessional is not a >> learning opportunity. It's a battlefield. Lets bring it on every >> other year than facing it every year with only a very small number >> contributing and a very large number just traveling (on both >> stakeholder groups). >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: *Ayden F?rdeline* > > >> Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget >> To: Rafik Dammak > >> Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >, Milton >> Mueller > >> >> >> Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, Rafik; I've >> replied directly and done my best to resolve your concerns. In >> particular please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 (constituency >> travellers). I'll put your question in #6 to Xavier on Monday when >> the [GNSO Council] Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has >> its next call with Finance. >> >> I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as perhaps >> it is better to be silent here rather than to praise something which >> may not have widespread support. This year's Intersessional was a >> trainwreck but I do think this is a disaster we have to own. Last >> year's Intersessional was brilliant. What was the difference? It >> wasn't content (as you said Rafik, the content rarely changes), but I >> do think it was the participant mix. Our 'side' was too silent at >> this year's meeting and we didn't have enough strong voices to >> counter the perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I think back >> to Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy and others >> engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see enough of that >> this year; I cannot even think of any action items that came out of >> the forum. With the suggestion circulating (at least during the >> Council's Strategic Planning Session) that we may need to go down >> from 3 to 2 ICANN public meetings per year for budgetary reasons, and >> may want to tie a Council meeting in with the GDD Summit, I am >> reluctant to relinquish any support allocated to us that has made the >> core budget. But perhaps we could advocate tying the Intersessional >> in with the GDD Summit, an idea floated last year? I could see real >> benefits to that; on some issues, the contracted parties are our >> allies... >> >> Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made the >> point in this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this community >> support, because I feel very strongly that to make small cuts here >> which impact us, without tackling structural issues where the real >> costs lie, is the wrong approach.?But how on earth could we expect >> ICANN to approve some of them? Some which 'we' submitted are >> genuinely embarrassing and would be an inappropriate use of funds if >> approved. I have not said anything on the main mailing list BUT ones >> like this, i.e. an NCUC board game >> , >> should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our >> reputation. Their submission was an Executive decision made without >> public consultation on the discussion list. I don't want this to >> sound like an attack against anyone, as that is not my intention, but >> I think we need to do some kind of internal reflection before >> submitting requests. This request for a board game will be seen by >> the entire community, will be mocked, and let's be real, won't be >> approved (nor should it!). Why do this to our reputation? >> >> Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow us to >>> work on it without pressure, >>> about the intercessional?which is a separate topic not necessarily >>> related to the budget, I am for an evaluation and assessment. I am >>> not that convinced that issues were a matter of planning. The >>> content is almost the same every year, just with small changes of >>> few topics. I think after 5 years or more, it is a good time to >>> review and think about improvement. I believe our CSG friends will >>> be open and welcome that. Organizing it every other year can provide >>> that opportunity and possibility for real change. >>> >>> I will review the budget and add my comments there. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >> >: >>> >>> I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, partially >>> because of insufficient planning on our part, as well as the >>> wrong delegates being in attendance. But I do think the concept >>> itself is a good one and one which should continue. I am happy >>> to remove this paragraph from the document altogether, however, >>> if we do not have a common agreement on their value. I don't >>> think it ranks among our most pressing concerns! >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I am one of those who questions the value of the intersessionals. >>>> >>>> I won't support continuing them every year. Every other year is >>>> a compromise I can accept. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> >>>> On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> I?ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate you >>>>> on doing so much work to go through the budget and prepare an >>>>> intelligent evaluation of it. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with most of the comments but propose a few minor >>>>> amendments here and there, which I will put onto the Google >>>>> doc using suggest mode. >>>>> >>>>> The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for >>>>> continued intersessionals. I don?t think there is consensus on >>>>> that and in fact after the last one I heard several people who >>>>> supported them question their value or frequency. A good >>>>> middle ground might be to have them once every other year. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I?ll enter my comments on the doc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>> >>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>> >>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>> >>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>> >>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:*?Ayden F?rdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com] >>>>> *Sent:*?Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM >>>>> *To:*?ncsg-pc >>>>> ; Mueller, Milton L >>>>> ; >>>>> crg at ISOC-CR.ORG ; >>>>> paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM >>>>> ; Corinne Cath >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:*?[Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment on >>>>> the FY19 budget. This took quite some time to comb through, >>>>> and I might have missed some things. So before I share this >>>>> comment on the main discussion list and face the inevitable >>>>> wrath of criticism and dislike, I thought I might share it >>>>> here to?get some initial feedback. I have also cc'd in a few >>>>> other people who might not be on this mailing list but who I >>>>> think might be able to offer some constructive edits on its >>>>> contents: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks for your help, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's because I >>>>> copied and pasted it from an email you sent to the NCSG list >>>>> last year re: our Reserve Fund comment. I hope this is okay. >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:46 PM Ayden F?rdeline > > wrote: >> >> The community has suffered cut after cut and we have been >> directly impacted. We have next to no budget for capacity >> building this fiscal year, and CROP has become useless, as it can >> only be used for ICANN-sponsored events and ICANN refuses to >> provide a list of them. And we are about to throw away $100,000 >> that actually was allocated to us for an intersessional? This is >> crazy; we should improve it, make it work. And I definitely think >> we should be consulting?with members to develop our position here. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:42, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since the >>> beginning not just the last ones. I am also cautious to think >>> that is "people" issue as it is usually the easy way to ignore >>> other causes and problems. >>> again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional >>> including iceland. even a topic like Board seat election was >>> only fixed this year and the work done by email and with a small >>> group. >>> I think it is a good time to review. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??08:35, Ayden F?rdeline >>> > a ?crit?: >>> >>> I think we should discuss this with the entire membership >>> before we rule it out. I think the intersessional has value. >>> It was not the best this year, but we invited the wrong >>> people. The Iceland intersessional?was extremely productive. >>> We should return to that format. And discuss who to invite. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak >>> > wrote: >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe >>>> issue is still there and make it impossible to make any >>>> substantial change in format or even topics. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??08:20, Ayden F?rdeline >>>> > a ?crit?: >>>> >>>> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this >>>> support. We have this resource allocated in the budget. >>>> Why not improve it for 2019? We won?t get it in 2020 if >>>> we decline the resource this fiscal year. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>> >>>>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the >>>>> format and the objectives? of the intercessional. we >>>>> got to review it, holding such meeting for sake of >>>>> holding makes no sense. >>>>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the >>>>> intersessional and we works with CSG when needed >>>>> outside that meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??07:55, farzaneh badii >>>>> >>>> > a ?crit?: >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have >>>>> the intersessional meeting every two years. today >>>>> the gnso team contacted the chairs to know their >>>>> opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and >>>>> i said that it should be every two years(based on >>>>> our previous deliberation with the group) >>>>> >>>>> So this means we should discuss holding it for >>>>> 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Aug 24 15:17:49 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:17:49 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: <441BD8AB-88D5-4C45-AACF-D4EC16947CCE@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <2f555c46-9ed3-5e97-da36-66a7844a60d6@mail.utoronto.ca> (I realized after I pushed send that I was conflating the two events there....but I do think it was useful) SP On 2018-08-24 08:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I have to say that the last intercessional was excellent, and we got a > lot done.? Earlier ones had been much less successful, and I think > coloured our responses.? I know we are all busy, but I think we are > asking for trouble in the GNSO review if we lose the momentum > established under Heather's chairmanship (I would even perhaps invite > her back to chair, as she invited Jonathan). > > Stephanie > > On 2018-08-24 04:50, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There was also an extensive discussion on the Google Doc when the >> comment was drafted, and there was significant support from NCSG >> members for an annual intersessional. Yes, there were some objections >> raised, which is why our comment was silent on the future of the >> intersessional. I do note that participation is optional and no one >> is forced to attend the intersessional if they do not consider it to >> be a productive use of their time. >> >>> Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget >>> it might be possible. >> >> That won?t happen. >> >> What will happen is this $100,000 that won?t be spent will be >> presented as an operational efficiency, as though ICANN staff have >> made some great sacrifice to replenish the reserve fund. We saw that >> happen with the cuts to CROP; it is being presented as though the >> spend on staff travel has decreased, when really, a good chunk of the >> decrease in spending has come from a reduction in community support. >> >> No intersessional won?t stop the BC or IPC from lobbying ICANN staff; >> they are often in DC or Los Angeles. It will hurt the NCSG however. >> >> I would oppose an intersessional that was anything like this year?s >> one; we need to think carefully about who we are inviting, and not >> just inviting those in leadership positions. I think we should be >> allocating the 21 slots as a stakeholder group and bringing in the >> right max of active participants. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >>> On 24 Aug 2018, at 06:03, farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >>> >>> Ayden, >>> >>> I had the impression that we had said in our comment on budget?that >>> we do the intersessional?every "other" year. Based on the thread >>> below, which Rafik, Tatiana, Milton had supported every other year >>> and mentioned it. But seems like you? decided to delete the >>> paragraph altogether and I did not personally respond to add it back >>> in and support every other year. >>> >>> Is ICANN giving us 100,000 USD to go to events that we have done so >>> well so far? RightsCon, IGF etc? No. It is throwing bad money after >>> bad. Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core >>> budget it might be possible. >>> >>> No one on post?intersessional?mailing list was meaningfully active,? >>> ?responding to staff questions and commenting (other than you). >>> Rarely there were any substantive comments that added to the report >>> etc. And we spent a lot of time planning the last year's >>> intersessional??but it does not get any better. We have made more >>> progress procedural wise, via email than we have? done during these >>> meetings. Also we have to always put out fire in these meetings. It >>> is exhausting. I won't be chair anymore so I won't even be obliged >>> to go but I have a tip.? as long as those who take the survey and >>> say it was great but don't even weigh in on simple questions on >>> mailing list, are not involved with working group to have an >>> understanding of dynamics, do not have a basic understanding of NCPH >>> and do not try to understand, then I think intersessional?is just >>> good for some to travel. For others it's a lot of work. >>> Intersessional is not a learning opportunity. It's a battlefield. >>> Lets bring it on every other year than facing it every year with >>> only a very small number contributing and a very large number just >>> traveling (on both stakeholder groups). >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: *Ayden F?rdeline* >> > >>> Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget >>> To: Rafik Dammak >> > >>> Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>> >, Milton >>> Mueller > >>> >>> >>> Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, Rafik; >>> I've replied directly and done my best to resolve your concerns. In >>> particular please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 (constituency >>> travellers). I'll put your question in #6 to Xavier on Monday when >>> the [GNSO Council] Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has >>> its next call with Finance. >>> >>> I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as >>> perhaps it is better to be silent here rather than to praise >>> something which may not have widespread support. This year's >>> Intersessional was a trainwreck but I do think this is a disaster we >>> have to own. Last year's Intersessional was brilliant. What was the >>> difference? It wasn't content (as you said Rafik, the content rarely >>> changes), but I do think it was the participant mix. Our 'side' was >>> too silent at this year's meeting and we didn't have enough strong >>> voices to counter the perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I >>> think back to Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy >>> and others engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see >>> enough of that this year; I cannot even think of any action items >>> that came out of the forum. With the suggestion circulating (at >>> least during the Council's Strategic Planning Session) that we may >>> need to go down from 3 to 2 ICANN public meetings per year for >>> budgetary reasons, and may want to tie a Council meeting in with the >>> GDD Summit, I am reluctant to relinquish any support allocated to us >>> that has made the core budget. But perhaps we could advocate tying >>> the Intersessional in with the GDD Summit, an idea floated last >>> year? I could see real benefits to that; on some issues, the >>> contracted parties are our allies... >>> >>> Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made the >>> point in this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this community >>> support, because I feel very strongly that to make small cuts here >>> which impact us, without tackling structural issues where the real >>> costs lie, is the wrong approach.?But how on earth could we expect >>> ICANN to approve some of them? Some which 'we' submitted are >>> genuinely embarrassing and would be an inappropriate use of funds if >>> approved. I have not said anything on the main mailing list BUT ones >>> like this, i.e. an NCUC board game >>> , >>> should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our >>> reputation. Their submission was an Executive decision made without >>> public consultation on the discussion list. I don't want this to >>> sound like an attack against anyone, as that is not my intention, >>> but I think we need to do some kind of internal reflection before >>> submitting requests. This request for a board game will be seen by >>> the entire community, will be mocked, and let's be real, won't be >>> approved (nor should it!). Why do this to our reputation? >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow us to >>>> work on it without pressure, >>>> about the intercessional?which is a separate topic not necessarily >>>> related to the budget, I am for an evaluation and assessment. I am >>>> not that convinced that issues were a matter of planning. The >>>> content is almost the same every year, just with small changes of >>>> few topics. I think after 5 years or more, it is a good time to >>>> review and think about improvement. I believe our CSG friends will >>>> be open and welcome that. Organizing it every other year can >>>> provide that opportunity and possibility for real change. >>>> >>>> I will review the budget and add my comments there. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >>> >: >>>> >>>> I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, partially >>>> because of insufficient planning on our part, as well as the >>>> wrong delegates being in attendance. But I do think the concept >>>> itself is a good one and one which should continue. I am happy >>>> to remove this paragraph from the document altogether, however, >>>> if we do not have a common agreement on their value. I don't >>>> think it ranks among our most pressing concerns! >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am one of those who questions the value of the intersessionals. >>>>> >>>>> I won't support continuing them every year. Every other year >>>>> is a compromise I can accept. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Tanya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> I?ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate you >>>>>> on doing so much work to go through the budget and prepare an >>>>>> intelligent evaluation of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with most of the comments but propose a few minor >>>>>> amendments here and there, which I will put onto the Google >>>>>> doc using suggest mode. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for >>>>>> continued intersessionals. I don?t think there is consensus >>>>>> on that and in fact after the last one I heard several people >>>>>> who supported them question their value or frequency. A good >>>>>> middle ground might be to have them once every other year. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, I?ll enter my comments on the doc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>> >>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>> >>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:*?Ayden F?rdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com] >>>>>> *Sent:*?Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM >>>>>> *To:*?ncsg-pc >>>>>> ; Mueller, Milton L >>>>>> ; >>>>>> crg at ISOC-CR.ORG ; >>>>>> paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM >>>>>> ; Corinne >>>>>> Cath >>>>>> *Subject:*?[Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment on >>>>>> the FY19 budget. This took quite some time to comb through, >>>>>> and I might have missed some things. So before I share this >>>>>> comment on the main discussion list and face the inevitable >>>>>> wrath of criticism and dislike, I thought I might share it >>>>>> here to?get some initial feedback. I have also cc'd in a few >>>>>> other people who might not be on this mailing list but who I >>>>>> think might be able to offer some constructive edits on its >>>>>> contents: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks for your help, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's because I >>>>>> copied and pasted it from an email you sent to the NCSG list >>>>>> last year re: our Reserve Fund comment. I hope this is okay. >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:46 PM Ayden F?rdeline >> > wrote: >>> >>> The community has suffered cut after cut and we have been >>> directly impacted. We have next to no budget for capacity >>> building this fiscal year, and CROP has become useless, as it >>> can only be used for ICANN-sponsored events and ICANN refuses to >>> provide a list of them. And we are about to throw away $100,000 >>> that actually was allocated to us for an intersessional? This is >>> crazy; we should improve it, make it work. And I definitely >>> think we should be consulting?with members to develop our >>> position here. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:42, Rafik Dammak >>> > wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since the >>>> beginning not just the last ones. I am also cautious to think >>>> that is "people" issue as it is usually the easy way to ignore >>>> other causes and problems. >>>> again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional >>>> including iceland. even a topic like Board seat election was >>>> only fixed this year and the work done by email and with a >>>> small group. >>>> I think it is a good time to review. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??08:35, Ayden F?rdeline >>>> > a ?crit?: >>>> >>>> I think we should discuss this with the entire membership >>>> before we rule it out. I think the intersessional has >>>> value. It was not the best this year, but we invited the >>>> wrong people. The Iceland intersessional?was extremely >>>> productive. We should return to that format. And discuss >>>> who to invite. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak >>>> > wrote: >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe >>>>> issue is still there and make it impossible to make any >>>>> substantial change in format or even topics. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??08:20, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> > a ?crit?: >>>>> >>>>> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down >>>>> this support. We have this resource allocated in the >>>>> budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We won?t get it >>>>> in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>> >>>>>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink >>>>>> the format and the objectives? of the intercessional. >>>>>> we got to review it, holding such meeting for sake of >>>>>> holding makes no sense. >>>>>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the >>>>>> intersessional and we works with CSG when needed >>>>>> outside that meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??07:55, farzaneh badii >>>>>> >>>>> > a ?crit?: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have >>>>>> the intersessional meeting every two years. today >>>>>> the gnso team contacted the chairs to know their >>>>>> opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and >>>>>> i said that it should be every two years(based on >>>>>> our previous deliberation with the group) >>>>>> >>>>>> So this means we should discuss holding it for >>>>>> 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 15:38:48 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:38:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: <2f555c46-9ed3-5e97-da36-66a7844a60d6@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <441BD8AB-88D5-4C45-AACF-D4EC16947CCE@ferdeline.com> <2f555c46-9ed3-5e97-da36-66a7844a60d6@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: You are talking about the council strategic meeting Stephanie. Are you still supporting the intersessional for NCPH? And you found it useful? Well you'll be the chair of NCSG and have to prepare it. Also note that ncsg only gets 7 slots. Npoc and ncuc will have 7 each. Selection cannot happen all at sg level and you will be bringing tourists around. That's what I have to say. Anyhow if csg altogether says biennial then we are done here. On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 8:18 AM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > (I realized after I pushed send that I was conflating the two events > there....but I do think it was useful) > > SP > On 2018-08-24 08:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I have to say that the last intercessional was excellent, and we got a lot > done. Earlier ones had been much less successful, and I think coloured our > responses. I know we are all busy, but I think we are asking for trouble > in the GNSO review if we lose the momentum established under Heather's > chairmanship (I would even perhaps invite her back to chair, as she invited > Jonathan). > > Stephanie > On 2018-08-24 04:50, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi, > > There was also an extensive discussion on the Google Doc when the comment > was drafted, and there was significant support from NCSG members for an > annual intersessional. Yes, there were some objections raised, which is why > our comment was silent on the future of the intersessional. I do note that > participation is optional and no one is forced to attend the intersessional > if they do not consider it to be a productive use of their time. > > Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget it > might be possible. > > > That won?t happen. > > What will happen is this $100,000 that won?t be spent will be presented as > an operational efficiency, as though ICANN staff have made some great > sacrifice to replenish the reserve fund. We saw that happen with the cuts > to CROP; it is being presented as though the spend on staff travel has > decreased, when really, a good chunk of the decrease in spending has come > from a reduction in community support. > > No intersessional won?t stop the BC or IPC from lobbying ICANN staff; they > are often in DC or Los Angeles. It will hurt the NCSG however. > > I would oppose an intersessional that was anything like this year?s one; > we need to think carefully about who we are inviting, and not just inviting > those in leadership positions. I think we should be allocating the 21 slots > as a stakeholder group and bringing in the right max of active participants. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > On 24 Aug 2018, at 06:03, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Ayden, > > I had the impression that we had said in our comment on budget that we do > the intersessional every "other" year. Based on the thread below, which > Rafik, Tatiana, Milton had supported every other year and mentioned it. > But seems like you decided to delete the paragraph altogether and I did > not personally respond to add it back in and support every other year. > > Is ICANN giving us 100,000 USD to go to events that we have done so well > so far? RightsCon, IGF etc? No. It is throwing bad money after bad. Can we > ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget it might be > possible. > > No one on post intersessional mailing list was meaningfully active, > responding to staff questions and commenting (other than you). Rarely > there were any substantive comments that added to the report etc. And we > spent a lot of time planning the last year's intersessional but it does > not get any better. We have made more progress procedural wise, via email > than we have done during these meetings. Also we have to always put out > fire in these meetings. It is exhausting. I won't be chair anymore so I > won't even be obliged to go but I have a tip. as long as those who take > the survey and say it was great but don't even weigh in on simple questions > on mailing list, are not involved with working group to have an > understanding of dynamics, do not have a basic understanding of NCPH and do > not try to understand, then I think intersessional is just good for some to > travel. For others it's a lot of work. Intersessional is not a learning > opportunity. It's a battlefield. Lets bring it on every other year than > facing it every year with only a very small number contributing and a very > large number just traveling (on both stakeholder groups). > > Best > > > > Farzaneh > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Ayden F?rdeline > Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget > To: Rafik Dammak > Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is , Milton Mueller < > milton at gatech.edu> > > > Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, Rafik; I've > replied directly and done my best to resolve your concerns. In particular > please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 (constituency travellers). I'll put > your question in #6 to Xavier on Monday when the [GNSO Council] Standing > Committee on Budget and Operations has its next call with Finance. > > I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as perhaps it > is better to be silent here rather than to praise something which may not > have widespread support. This year's Intersessional was a trainwreck but I > do think this is a disaster we have to own. Last year's Intersessional was > brilliant. What was the difference? It wasn't content (as you said Rafik, > the content rarely changes), but I do think it was the participant mix. Our > 'side' was too silent at this year's meeting and we didn't have enough > strong voices to counter the perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I > think back to Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy and > others engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see enough of that > this year; I cannot even think of any action items that came out of the > forum. With the suggestion circulating (at least during the Council's > Strategic Planning Session) that we may need to go down from 3 to 2 ICANN > public meetings per year for budgetary reasons, and may want to tie a > Council meeting in with the GDD Summit, I am reluctant to relinquish any > support allocated to us that has made the core budget. But perhaps we could > advocate tying the Intersessional in with the GDD Summit, an idea floated > last year? I could see real benefits to that; on some issues, the > contracted parties are our allies... > > Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made the point in > this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this community support, > because I feel very strongly that to make small cuts here which impact us, > without tackling structural issues where the real costs lie, is the wrong > approach. But how on earth could we expect ICANN to approve some of them? > Some which 'we' submitted are genuinely embarrassing and would be an > inappropriate use of funds if approved. I have not said anything on the > main mailing list BUT ones like this, i.e. an NCUC board game > , > should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our reputation. > Their submission was an Executive decision made without public consultation > on the discussion list. I don't want this to sound like an attack against > anyone, as that is not my intention, but I think we need to do some kind of > internal reflection before submitting requests. This request for a board > game will be seen by the entire community, will be mocked, and let's be > real, won't be approved (nor should it!). Why do this to our reputation? > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow us to work > on it without pressure, > about the intercessional which is a separate topic not necessarily related > to the budget, I am for an evaluation and assessment. I am not that > convinced that issues were a matter of planning. The content is almost the > same every year, just with small changes of few topics. I think after 5 > years or more, it is a good time to review and think about improvement. I > believe our CSG friends will be open and welcome that. Organizing it every > other year can provide that opportunity and possibility for real change. > > I will review the budget and add my comments there. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, partially because of >> insufficient planning on our part, as well as the wrong delegates being in >> attendance. But I do think the concept itself is a good one and one which >> should continue. I am happy to remove this paragraph from the document >> altogether, however, if we do not have a common agreement on their value. I >> don't think it ranks among our most pressing concerns! >> >> Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina >> wrote: >> >> I am one of those who questions the value of the intersessionals. >> >> I won't support continuing them every year. Every other year is a >> compromise I can accept. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tanya >> >> On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Ayden >> >> I?ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate you on doing so >> much work to go through the budget and prepare an intelligent evaluation of >> it. >> >> I agree with most of the comments but propose a few minor amendments here >> and there, which I will put onto the Google doc using suggest mode. >> >> The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for continued >> intersessionals. I don?t think there is consensus on that and in fact after >> the last one I heard several people who supported them question their value >> or frequency. A good middle ground might be to have them once every other >> year. >> >> >> >> Anyway, I?ll enter my comments on the doc. >> >> >> >> Dr. Milton L Mueller >> >> Professor, School of Public Policy >> >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> >> Internet Governance Project >> >> http://internetgovernance.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Ayden F?rdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com >> ] >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM >> *To:* ncsg-pc ; Mueller, >> Milton L ; crg at ISOC-CR.ORG; >> paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM; Corinne Cath >> >> *Subject:* [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 >> budget. This took quite some time to comb through, and I might have missed >> some things. So before I share this comment on the main discussion list and >> face the inevitable wrath of criticism and dislike, I thought I might share >> it here to get some initial feedback. I have also cc'd in a few other >> people who might not be on this mailing list but who I think might be able >> to offer some constructive edits on its contents: >> >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> Many thanks for your help, >> >> >> >> Ayden >> >> >> >> P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's because I copied and >> pasted it from an email you sent to the NCSG list last year re: our Reserve >> Fund comment. I hope this is okay. Thanks! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > Farzaneh > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:46 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> The community has suffered cut after cut and we have been directly >> impacted. We have next to no budget for capacity building this fiscal year, >> and CROP has become useless, as it can only be used for ICANN-sponsored >> events and ICANN refuses to provide a list of them. And we are about to >> throw away $100,000 that actually was allocated to us for an >> intersessional? This is crazy; we should improve it, make it work. And I >> definitely think we should be consulting with members to develop our >> position here. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:42, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since the beginning >> not just the last ones. I am also cautious to think that is "people" issue >> as it is usually the easy way to ignore other causes and problems. >> again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional including >> iceland. even a topic like Board seat election was only fixed this year and >> the work done by email and with a small group. >> I think it is a good time to review. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:35, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> I think we should discuss this with the entire membership before we rule >>> it out. I think the intersessional has value. It was not the best this >>> year, but we invited the wrong people. The Iceland intersessional was >>> extremely productive. We should return to that format. And discuss who to >>> invite. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe issue is still >>> there and make it impossible to make any substantial change in format or >>> even topics. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:20, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We >>>> have this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We >>>> won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>> >>>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the >>>> objectives of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such >>>> meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. >>>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works >>>> with CSG when needed outside that meeting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 07:55, farzaneh badii >>>> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional >>>>> meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know >>>>> their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it >>>>> should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the >>>>> group) >>>>> >>>>> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no >>>>> intersessional in 2019. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing 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 > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Aug 24 16:02:27 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:02:27 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020 In-Reply-To: References: <441BD8AB-88D5-4C45-AACF-D4EC16947CCE@ferdeline.com> <2f555c46-9ed3-5e97-da36-66a7844a60d6@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55dc6e63-982a-37c1-7bbf-79226e2ae576@mail.utoronto.ca> Yes, as I said I was conflating the two meetings....I was extremely sick after I got there, had a really bad fever.? Missed some of the GNSO meeting and was not so perky during the intercessional..... I do share a lot of Ayden's concerns though.? YEs we need people to work on it, yes the BC will be up to its usual tricks, but we still need to try to get together with these guys and develop better relationships. SP On 2018-08-24 08:38, farzaneh badii wrote: > You are talking about the council strategic meeting Stephanie. Are you > still supporting the intersessional for NCPH? And you found it useful? > > Well you'll be the chair of NCSG and have to prepare it. > > Also note that ncsg only gets 7 slots. Npoc and ncuc will have 7 each. > Selection cannot happen all at sg level and you will be bringing > tourists around. That's what I have to say. Anyhow if csg altogether > says biennial then we are done here. > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 8:18 AM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > (I realized after I pushed send that I was conflating the two > events there....but I do think it was useful) > > SP > > On 2018-08-24 08:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> I have to say that the last intercessional was excellent, and we >> got a lot done.? Earlier ones had been much less successful, and >> I think coloured our responses.? I know we are all busy, but I >> think we are asking for trouble in the GNSO review if we lose the >> momentum established under Heather's chairmanship (I would even >> perhaps invite her back to chair, as she invited Jonathan). >> >> Stephanie >> >> On 2018-08-24 04:50, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> There was also an extensive discussion on the Google Doc when >>> the comment was drafted, and there was significant support from >>> NCSG members for an annual intersessional. Yes, there were some >>> objections raised, which is why our comment was silent on the >>> future of the intersessional. I do note that participation is >>> optional and no one is forced to attend the intersessional if >>> they do not consider it to be a productive use of their time. >>> >>>> Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core >>>> budget it might be possible. >>> >>> That won?t happen. >>> >>> What will happen is this $100,000 that won?t be spent will be >>> presented as an operational efficiency, as though ICANN staff >>> have made some great sacrifice to replenish the reserve fund. We >>> saw that happen with the cuts to CROP; it is being presented as >>> though the spend on staff travel has decreased, when really, a >>> good chunk of the decrease in spending has come from a reduction >>> in community support. >>> >>> No intersessional won?t stop the BC or IPC from lobbying ICANN >>> staff; they are often in DC or Los Angeles. It will hurt the >>> NCSG however. >>> >>> I would oppose an intersessional that was anything like this >>> year?s one; we need to think carefully about who we are >>> inviting, and not just inviting those in leadership positions. I >>> think we should be allocating the 21 slots as a stakeholder >>> group and bringing in the right max of active participants. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>>> On 24 Aug 2018, at 06:03, farzaneh badii >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Ayden, >>>> >>>> I had the impression that we had said in our comment on >>>> budget?that we do the intersessional?every "other" year. Based >>>> on the thread below, which Rafik, Tatiana, Milton had supported >>>> every other year? and mentioned it. But seems like you? decided >>>> to delete the paragraph altogether and I did not personally >>>> respond to add it back in and support every other year. >>>> >>>> Is ICANN giving us 100,000 USD to go to events that we have >>>> done so well so far? RightsCon, IGF etc? No. It is throwing bad >>>> money after bad. Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a >>>> part of the core budget it might be possible. >>>> >>>> No one on post?intersessional?mailing list was meaningfully >>>> active,? ?responding to staff questions and commenting (other >>>> than you). Rarely there were any substantive comments that >>>> added to the report etc. And we spent a lot of time planning >>>> the last year's intersessional??but it does not get any better. >>>> We have made more progress procedural wise, via email than we >>>> have done during these meetings. Also we have to always put out >>>> fire in these meetings. It is exhausting. I won't be chair >>>> anymore so I won't even be obliged to go but I have a tip.? as >>>> long as those who take the survey and say it was great but >>>> don't even weigh in on simple questions on mailing list, are >>>> not involved with working group to have an understanding of >>>> dynamics, do not have a basic understanding of NCPH and do not >>>> try to understand, then I think intersessional?is just good for >>>> some to travel. For others it's a lot of work. Intersessional >>>> is not a learning opportunity. It's a battlefield. Lets bring >>>> it on every other year than facing it every year with only a >>>> very small number contributing and a very large number just >>>> traveling (on both stakeholder groups). >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> > >>>> Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the >>>> FY19 Budget >>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>> > >>>> Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >, Milton >>>> Mueller > >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, >>>> Rafik; I've replied directly and done my best to resolve your >>>> concerns. In particular please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 >>>> (constituency travellers). I'll put your question in #6 to >>>> Xavier on Monday when the [GNSO Council] Standing Committee on >>>> Budget and Operations has its next call with Finance. >>>> >>>> I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as >>>> perhaps it is better to be silent here rather than to praise >>>> something which may not have widespread support. This year's >>>> Intersessional was a trainwreck but I do think this is a >>>> disaster we have to own. Last year's Intersessional was >>>> brilliant. What was the difference? It wasn't content (as you >>>> said Rafik, the content rarely changes), but I do think it was >>>> the participant mix. Our 'side' was too silent at this year's >>>> meeting and we didn't have enough strong voices to counter the >>>> perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I think back to >>>> Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy and others >>>> engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see enough of >>>> that this year; I cannot even think of any action items that >>>> came out of the forum. With the suggestion circulating (at >>>> least during the Council's Strategic Planning Session) that we >>>> may need to go down from 3 to 2 ICANN public meetings per year >>>> for budgetary reasons, and may want to tie a Council meeting in >>>> with the GDD Summit, I am reluctant to relinquish any support >>>> allocated to us that has made the core budget. But perhaps we >>>> could advocate tying the Intersessional in with the GDD Summit, >>>> an idea floated last year? I could see real benefits to that; >>>> on some issues, the contracted parties are our allies... >>>> >>>> Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made >>>> the point in this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this >>>> community support, because I feel very strongly that to make >>>> small cuts here which impact us, without tackling structural >>>> issues where the real costs lie, is the wrong approach.?But how >>>> on earth could we expect ICANN to approve some of them? Some >>>> which 'we' submitted are genuinely embarrassing and would be an >>>> inappropriate use of funds if approved. I have not said >>>> anything on the main mailing list BUT ones like this, i.e. an >>>> NCUC board game >>>> , >>>> should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our >>>> reputation. Their submission was an Executive decision made >>>> without public consultation on the discussion list. I don't >>>> want this to sound like an attack against anyone, as that is >>>> not my intention, but I think we need to do some kind of >>>> internal reflection before submitting requests. This request >>>> for a board game will be seen by the entire community, will be >>>> mocked, and let's be real, won't be approved (nor should it!). >>>> Why do this to our reputation? >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow >>>>> us to work on it without pressure, >>>>> about the intercessional?which is a separate topic not >>>>> necessarily related to the budget, I am for an evaluation and >>>>> assessment. I am not that convinced that issues were a matter >>>>> of planning. The content is almost the same every year, just >>>>> with small changes of few topics. I think after 5 years or >>>>> more, it is a good time to review and think about improvement. >>>>> I believe our CSG friends will be open and welcome that. >>>>> Organizing it every other year can provide that opportunity >>>>> and possibility for real change. >>>>> >>>>> I will review the budget and add my comments there. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, >>>>> partially because of insufficient planning on our part, as >>>>> well as the wrong delegates being in attendance. But I do >>>>> think the concept itself is a good one and one which >>>>> should continue. I am happy to remove this paragraph from >>>>> the document altogether, however, if we do not have a >>>>> common agreement on their value. I don't think it ranks >>>>> among our most pressing concerns! >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am one of those who questions the value of the >>>>>> intersessionals. >>>>>> >>>>>> I won't support continuing them every year. Every other >>>>>> year is a compromise I can accept. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tanya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate >>>>>>> you on doing so much work to go through the budget and >>>>>>> prepare an intelligent evaluation of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with most of the comments but propose a few >>>>>>> minor amendments here and there, which I will put onto >>>>>>> the Google doc using suggest mode. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for >>>>>>> continued intersessionals. I don?t think there is >>>>>>> consensus on that and in fact after the last one I heard >>>>>>> several people who supported them question their value >>>>>>> or frequency. A good middle ground might be to have them >>>>>>> once every other year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, I?ll enter my comments on the doc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet Governance Project >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:*?Ayden F?rdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com] >>>>>>> *Sent:*?Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM >>>>>>> *To:*?ncsg-pc >>>>>>> ; Mueller, Milton L >>>>>>> ; >>>>>>> crg at ISOC-CR.ORG ; >>>>>>> paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM >>>>>>> ; >>>>>>> Corinne Cath >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subject:*?[Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment >>>>>>> on the FY19 budget. This took quite some time to comb >>>>>>> through, and I might have missed some things. So before >>>>>>> I share this comment on the main discussion list and >>>>>>> face the inevitable wrath of criticism and dislike, I >>>>>>> thought I might share it here to?get some initial >>>>>>> feedback. I have also cc'd in a few other people who >>>>>>> might not be on this mailing list but who I think might >>>>>>> be able to offer some constructive edits on its contents: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks for your help, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's >>>>>>> because I copied and pasted it from an email you sent to >>>>>>> the NCSG list last year re: our Reserve Fund comment. I >>>>>>> hope this is okay. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:46 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The community has suffered cut after cut and we have been >>>> directly impacted. We have next to no budget for capacity >>>> building this fiscal year, and CROP has become useless, as >>>> it can only be used for ICANN-sponsored events and ICANN >>>> refuses to provide a list of them. And we are about to >>>> throw away $100,000 that actually was allocated to us for >>>> an intersessional? This is crazy; we should improve it, >>>> make it work. And I definitely think we should be >>>> consulting?with members to develop our position here. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:42, Rafik Dammak >>>> > wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since >>>>> the beginning not just the last ones. I am also cautious >>>>> to think that is "people" issue as it is usually the easy >>>>> way to ignore other causes and problems. >>>>> again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional >>>>> including iceland. even a topic like Board seat election >>>>> was only fixed this year and the work done by email and >>>>> with a small group. >>>>> I think it is a good time to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??08:35, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> > a ?crit?: >>>>> >>>>> I think we should discuss this with the entire >>>>> membership before we rule it out. I think the >>>>> intersessional has value. It was not the best this >>>>> year, but we invited the wrong people. The Iceland >>>>> intersessional?was extremely productive. We should >>>>> return to that format. And discuss who to invite. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see how things can be improve. the same >>>>>> timeframe issue is still there and make it impossible >>>>>> to make any substantial change in format or even topics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??08:20, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> > a >>>>>> ?crit?: >>>>>> >>>>>> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn >>>>>> down this support. We have this resource >>>>>> allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for >>>>>> 2019? We won?t get it in 2020 if we decline the >>>>>> resource this fiscal year. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to >>>>>>> rethink the format and the objectives? of the >>>>>>> intercessional. we got to review it, holding >>>>>>> such meeting for sake of holding makes no sense. >>>>>>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the >>>>>>> intersessional and we works with CSG when needed >>>>>>> outside that meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??07:55, farzaneh badii >>>>>>> >>>>>> > a ?crit?: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to >>>>>>> have the intersessional meeting every two >>>>>>> years. today the gnso team contacted the >>>>>>> chairs to know their opinion about holding >>>>>>> the intersessional Joan and i said that it >>>>>>> should be every two years(based on our >>>>>>> previous deliberation with the group) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So this means we should discuss holding it >>>>>>> for 2020 and no intersessional in 2019. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 20:14:01 2018 From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:14:01 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Omg, AMAZING! Especially considering that the document is starting to take some form. Em qui, 23 de ago de 2018 13:54, Elsa S escreveu: > Super!!!! We could meet wednesday or thursday next week if you think a > call would help. I can send a doodle poll if you are interested. > > E. > ? > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Emily Barabas >> >> >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> >> >> We are writing to let you know that the public comment period >> >> for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been >> extended. Public comments will now be accepted through *26 September >> 2018*. Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the >> relevant members of your group? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Nathalie Peregrine >> *Date: *Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 >> *To: *farzaneh badii >> *Cc: *"jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" , Cheryl >> Langdon-Orr , Steve Chan , >> Julie Hedlund , Emily Barabas < >> emily.barabas at icann.org>, Maryam Bakoshi , " >> gnso-secs at icann.org" >> *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public >> Comment >> >> >> >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> >> >> We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the >> community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to >> consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 >> Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and >> implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached >> an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public >> Comment [icann.org] >> . >> We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide >> feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, >> options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to >> the success of this PDP. >> >> *1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG* >> >> The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was >> chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process >> (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to >> the existing *Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains* >> [gnso.icann.org] >> policy >> recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant >> Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] >> >> dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the >> GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and >> ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those >> policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New >> gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy >> recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work >> Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its >> charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment >> periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes >> material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, >> focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than >> the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. >> >> >> >> *2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment* >> >> The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s >> deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential >> options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the >> Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the >> thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and >> improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other >> Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of >> consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The >> Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of >> consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations >> contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the >> unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of >> support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community >> on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early >> of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to >> modifications to those positions as a result of community input. >> >> >> >> In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were >> generally agreed to by members that participated in the different Work >> Tracks, support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall >> Working Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive >> positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in >> this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks >> is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by >> the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. >> >> >> >> After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, >> the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary >> recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as >> a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released >> by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that >> is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at >> the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues >> its Final Report. >> >> >> >> Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any >> comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to >> provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the >> report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics >> and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every >> single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, >> please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we >> may fully consider it in our further deliberations. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >> >> >> >> >> >> Nathalie Peregrine >> >> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >> >> >> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann >> >> >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and >> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 20:00:31 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 19:00:31 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <538AF373-2992-4C73-A240-77AACCD599BF@gmail.com> Thanks to everyone involved in this on our behalf! ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Aug 23, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote: > > Omg, AMAZING! Especially considering that the document is starting to take some form. > > Em qui, 23 de ago de 2018 13:54, Elsa S escreveu: >> Super!!!! We could meet wednesday or thursday next week if you think a call would help. I can send a doodle poll if you are interested. >> >> E. >> ? >> >>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM farzaneh badii wrote: >>> we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Emily Barabas >>> >>> >>> Dear Farzaneh, >>> >>> >>> >>> We are writing to let you know that the public comment period for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been extended. Public comments will now be accepted through 26 September 2018. Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the relevant members of your group? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Nathalie Peregrine >>> Date: Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 >>> To: farzaneh badii >>> Cc: "jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Steve Chan , Julie Hedlund , Emily Barabas , Maryam Bakoshi , "gnso-secs at icann.org" >>> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Farzaneh, >>> >>> We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public Comment [icann.org]. We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to the success of this PDP. >>> 1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG >>> The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to the existing Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains [gnso.icann.org] policy recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. >>> >>> >>> 2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment >>> The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to modifications to those positions as a result of community input. >>> >>> >>> In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were generally agreed to by members that participated in the different Work Tracks, support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall Working Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. >>> >>> >>> After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues its Final Report. >>> >>> Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we may fully consider it in our further deliberations. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Nathalie Peregrine >>> >>> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>> >>> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann >>> >>> >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> -- >> >> Elsa Saade >> Consultant >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 20:49:06 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:49:06 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] The NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: <3341A3DC-CB65-49B6-A73F-E8D512380256@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: There is no.further comment on this process in the Google doc nor here if no objections received by the end of the day I will send this to csg. On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:17 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > Thanks, the process looks ok to me. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 01:16, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> Hi everybody >> >> I have made the necessary changes in the document addressing the >> concerns. Mainly added clarifications about when the vice chair is running >> for chair and that the NCPH should collectively put the nomination forward >> and no stakeholder group can do so individually. >> >> If no objection, I will send this document to CSG tomorrow. >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:51 AM farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> This has no bearing on our charter nor does it prevent the future >>> leaders to re open the issue and discuss again but I suggest it won't be >>> before each election. Because it is supposed to bring some certainty as to >>> how nomination should and selection between the two stakeholder group >>> should take place. Amendments should be made if the process doesn't work >>> and needs clarification. In case there is any conflict between this >>> document and GNSO procedures, ICANN Bylaws or NCSG charter, they will >>> prevail. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:13 AM Farell FOLLY >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Farzaneh, >>>> >>>> Thanks for drafting this. It looks good to me. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, I have one question: To what extent are we liable to this >>>> document (let's say MoU) in the future? Will it be bound to our respective >>>> charters? What will prevent both the new chairs (CSG and NCSG) to try and >>>> elaborate a new one just before the next election? >>>> >>>> I believe it is a live document and amendements are always permissible, >>>> however; I wish we have a statement that determines how amendement process >>>> should be undertaken and how this is connected to our charter. >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY >>>> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 17:30, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello PC members >>>> >>>> Here is a draft NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections. >>>> I drafted this and CSG leaders commented on it. We can hopefully get >>>> this approved soon. It is a straightforward process. I will share it with >>>> NCSG members at the same time to speed up the process. >>>> >>>> Here is the Google Doc Link: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 21:03:55 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 14:03:55 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PIR meeting Message-ID: Hello everyone, I am still the NCSG rep on PIR advisory council and am going to be in Reston in October attending the two-day meeting. Will keep you and the Chair Elect updated. I am going to ask the members what should be on the agenda, though not all the agenda items might be included. Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 02:19:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 08:19:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Written Input to the EPDP In-Reply-To: <650E888E-BC2E-4AEB-A447-4741FB4BE052@ferdeline.com> References: <650E888E-BC2E-4AEB-A447-4741FB4BE052@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi all, this early input has to be reviewed and endorsed quickly. those in EPDP team should be familiar with it. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ayden F?rdeline Date: dim. 26 ao?t 2018 ? 03:14 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Written Input to the EPDP To: Dear all, The Expedited Policy Development Process Team that is considering the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data has invited the community to submit written input on this topic. The deadline for submissions is 29 August. The NCSG representatives on this team are currently drafting a statement for submission on behalf of our Stakeholder Group. You can find our current draft on Google Docs here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16j1QDoHCfTSoRuQADkWa5sNXrr1MxTd5AoY2UkPwgO4/edit?usp=sharing Your feedback is warmly welcomed. Can you please review this draft comment and provide any suggested edits by Monday, so that we can finalise our input. Thank you. Best wishes, Ayden F?rdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 03:53:52 2018 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 20:53:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Any chance we could meet this coming week to fix the document? I?ll touch base with Robin and maybe Kathy to see if they could join us to answer some of our questions on the doc. In the meantime, I?ll be reviewing the doc and seeing if we could add any further points. Let me know if interested! I can set up a google doc. E. ? On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:27 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Farzaneh, that is good for us. > I touched base few days ago with Elsa and Bruna regarding the status of > our draft and we are currently progressing. I think Kathy is also helping > for the review and Robin will be consulted too. > as reminder we organized few weeks ago a NCSG webinar ( > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Webinars) on the > report presented by Robin where she highlighted the most important and > relevant topics for us, I advice everyone to listen to it. while the report > is 300 pages (there are appendices etc), it can be easier to listen to the > webinar and check the spreadsheet made by the WG with all the > recommendations and questions organized by topic. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 01:31, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Emily Barabas >> >> >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> >> >> We are writing to let you know that the public comment period >> >> for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been >> extended. Public comments will now be accepted through *26 September >> 2018*. Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the >> relevant members of your group? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Nathalie Peregrine >> *Date: *Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 >> *To: *farzaneh badii >> *Cc: *"jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" , Cheryl >> Langdon-Orr , Steve Chan , >> Julie Hedlund , Emily Barabas < >> emily.barabas at icann.org>, Maryam Bakoshi , " >> gnso-secs at icann.org" >> *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public >> Comment >> >> >> >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> >> >> We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent >> Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the >> community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to >> consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 >> Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and >> implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached >> an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public >> Comment [icann.org] >> . >> We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide >> feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, >> options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to >> the success of this PDP. >> >> *1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG* >> >> The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was >> chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process >> (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to >> the existing *Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains* >> [gnso.icann.org] >> policy >> recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant >> Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] >> >> dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the >> GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and >> ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those >> policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New >> gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy >> recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work >> Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its >> charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment >> periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes >> material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, >> focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than >> the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. >> >> >> >> *2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment* >> >> The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s >> deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential >> options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the >> Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the >> thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and >> improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other >> Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of >> consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The >> Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of >> consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations >> contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the >> unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of >> support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community >> on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early >> of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to >> modifications to those positions as a result of community input. >> >> >> >> In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were >> generally agreed to by members that participated in the different Work >> Tracks, support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall >> Working Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive >> positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in >> this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks >> is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by >> the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. >> >> >> >> After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, >> the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary >> recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as >> a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released >> by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that >> is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at >> the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues >> its Final Report. >> >> >> >> Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any >> comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to >> provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the >> report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics >> and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every >> single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, >> please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we >> may fully consider it in our further deliberations. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >> >> >> >> >> >> Nathalie Peregrine >> >> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >> >> >> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann >> >> >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and >> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Aug 27 07:20:26 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:20:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <584e5317-be19-5fe4-0802-d40fc74e3663@kathykleiman.com> Hi Elsa, With the deadline still pending last week, I went ahead, printed off the 300 page report, and spent hours digging into it. I also participated in Subgroup 2 -- Legal and Regulatory -- and was dismayed by the lack of data, systematic analysis, or serious consideration of views other than those being directly represented by members of the subgroup (nearly all active members representing large, incumbent New gTLD Registries who want to register hundreds (or more) New gTLDs). I remember our goals in the first Applicant Guidebook in the late 2000's -- how excited we were to see Internationalized Domain Names, and our great hope that Applicants for New gTLDs would be from countries and regions underrepresented (and, in some cases, completely unrepresented) as registries in the existing (legacy) gTLDs. In this next round (or the many next rounds the SubPro Working Group envisions), I see many of these hopes being dashed and am very concerned. The devil is in the details -- in the very procedural rules they are setting out. I am deeply concerned that with insufficient notice and guidance, smaller and more diverse entities will not be able to apply. I'm equally concerned that with no limits to applications, or even the proposed "first-come, first-served" system (which I'll rename "the all you can gobble" approach), there will be no time for the Global South to catch up -- everything could well be given away by then. Extensive comments!? More can be added, particularly on the issues you and Bruna highlighted.? If you can link these principles and important discussion to specific sections of the Initial Report in which they are discussed, it will help to ensure that our comments, and your important thoughts, will receive the credit they deserve when comments are compiled by staff into a report. I'm out of the office for this last week of summer, but otherwise around. Best, Kathy On 8/25/2018 8:53 PM, Elsa S wrote: > Hi all, > > Any chance we could meet this coming week to fix the document? I?ll > touch base with Robin and maybe Kathy to see if they could join us to > answer some of our questions on the doc. In the meantime, I?ll be > reviewing the doc and seeing if we could add any further points. > > Let me know if interested! I can set up a google doc. > > E. > ? > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:27 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Thanks Farzaneh, that is good for us. > I touched base few days ago with Elsa and Bruna regarding the > status of our draft and we are currently progressing.? I think > Kathy is also helping for the review and Robin will be consulted too. > as reminder we organized few weeks ago a NCSG webinar > (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Webinars) > on the report presented by Robin where she highlighted the most > important and relevant topics for us, I advice everyone to listen > to it. while the report is 300 pages (there are appendices etc), > it can be easier to listen to the webinar and check the > spreadsheet made by the WG with all the recommendations and > questions organized by topic. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ??01:31, farzaneh badii > > a ?crit?: > > we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. > > Farzaneh > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Emily Barabas* > > > Dear Farzaneh, > > We are writing to let you know that the public comment period > > for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report > has been extended. Public comments will now be accepted > through *26 September 2018*. Can you kindly assist in sharing > this information with the relevant members of your group? > > Best regards, > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) > > *From: *Nathalie Peregrine > > *Date: *Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 > *To: *farzaneh badii > > *Cc: *"jeff.neuman at comlaude.com > " >, Cheryl Langdon-Orr > >, Steve > Chan >, > Julie Hedlund >, Emily Barabas > >, > Maryam Bakoshi >, "gnso-secs at icann.org > " > > *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial > Report - Public Comment > > Dear Farzaneh, > > We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD > Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with > calling upon the community?s collective experiences from the > 2012 New gTLD Program round to consider potential changes that > may be needed to the existing 2007 Introduction of New Generic > Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and implementation. > We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached an > important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for > Public Comment [icann.org] > . > We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report > and provide feedback through public comment on the draft > preliminary recommendations, options, and questions for > community feedback. Your input is essential to the success of > this PDP. > > *1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG* > > The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), > which was chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy > Development Process (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if > any, changes may need to be made to the existing/Introduction > of New Generic Top-Level Domains/ [gnso.icann.org] > //policy > recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the > finalApplicant Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] > dated > June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted > by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to > produce systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to > propose new top-level domains,? those policy recommendations > remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program > unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy > recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG > created 5 Work Tracks that are responsible for considering the > subjects within its charter. The PDP WG sought community input > through two community comment periods. The Working Group has > produced its Initial Report, which includes material from the > full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, focused > on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later > than the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial > Report. > > *2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment* > > The objective of this Initial Report is to document the > Working Group?s deliberations on charter issues and > preliminary recommendations, potential options for > recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the > Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of > issues, and the thousands of hours spent on addressing the > 2012 New gTLD Program and improvements that can be made to the > program moving forward, unlike other Initial Reports, this one > does not contain a ?Statement of level of consensus for the > recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The > Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure > the level of consensus of the Working Group members of dozens > of recommendations contained within the Initial Report, but > that doing so could have the unintended consequence of locking > Working Group members into positions of support or opposition > prior to soliciting public comment from the community on those > recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this > early of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less > open to modifications to those positions as a result of > community input. > > In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations > were generally agreed to by members that participated in the > different Work Tracks, support has not been assessed amongst > the members of the overall Working Group. The Overall Working > Group has not sought to form definitive positions on each of > these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in this > report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work > Tracks is making a recommendation should be read as merely a > rough assessment by the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track > leads. > > After a comprehensive review of public comments received on > this report, the Working Group will deliberate further on the > preliminary recommendations contained within the Initial > Report. It is possible that as a result of the deliberations, > there may be supplemental reports released by the Working > Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that is > completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus > call(s) at the plenary level, on all recommendations before > the Working Group issues its Final Report. > > Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look > forward to any comments and any input that you and the > organization you Chair are able to provide to our WG. While we > of course welcome input on any area of the report, we would > like to stress that given the extensive number of topics and > preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond > to every single preliminary recommendation, option, and > question. If possible, please submit your comments and input > to us by 5 September 2018 so that we may fully consider it in > our further deliberations. > > Best regards, > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) > > Nathalie Peregrine > > Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > > Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive > courses?and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Aug 28 01:58:45 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 07:58:45 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Written Input to the EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <650E888E-BC2E-4AEB-A447-4741FB4BE052@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: hi all, if there is no objection in coming hours, Farzaneh should submit the comment to EPDP team. Best, Rafik Le dim. 26 ao?t 2018 ? 08:19, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > this early input has to be reviewed and endorsed quickly. those in EPDP > team should be familiar with it. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Ayden F?rdeline > Date: dim. 26 ao?t 2018 ? 03:14 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Written Input to the EPDP > To: > > > Dear all, > > The Expedited Policy Development Process Team that is > considering the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data has > invited the community to submit written input on this topic. The deadline > for submissions is 29 August. > > The NCSG representatives on this team are currently drafting a statement > for submission on behalf of our Stakeholder Group. You can find our current > draft on Google Docs here: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16j1QDoHCfTSoRuQADkWa5sNXrr1MxTd5AoY2UkPwgO4/edit?usp=sharing > > Your feedback is warmly welcomed. Can you please review this draft comment > and provide any suggested edits by Monday, so that we can finalise our > input. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden F?rdeline > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue Aug 28 02:46:33 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 20:46:33 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Written Input to the EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <650E888E-BC2E-4AEB-A447-4741FB4BE052@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: More tha than full support and thanks to all that worked on it. Cheers, Martin On Mon, Aug 27, 2018, 19:59 Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi all, > > if there is no objection in coming hours, Farzaneh should submit the > comment to EPDP team. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 26 ao?t 2018 ? 08:19, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> this early input has to be reviewed and endorsed quickly. those in EPDP >> team should be familiar with it. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Ayden F?rdeline >> Date: dim. 26 ao?t 2018 ? 03:14 >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Written Input to the EPDP >> To: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> The Expedited Policy Development Process Team that is >> considering the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data has >> invited the community to submit written input on this topic. The deadline >> for submissions is 29 August. >> >> The NCSG representatives on this team are currently drafting a statement >> for submission on behalf of our Stakeholder Group. You can find our current >> draft on Google Docs here: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16j1QDoHCfTSoRuQADkWa5sNXrr1MxTd5AoY2UkPwgO4/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Your feedback is warmly welcomed. Can you please review this draft >> comment and provide any suggested edits by Monday, so that we can finalise >> our input. Thank you. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Aug 28 04:39:14 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 21:39:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Written Input to the EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <650E888E-BC2E-4AEB-A447-4741FB4BE052@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks This was submitted. Farzaneh On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 7:46 PM Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > More tha than full support and thanks to all that worked on it. > > Cheers, > Martin > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018, 19:59 Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> if there is no objection in coming hours, Farzaneh should submit the >> comment to EPDP team. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 26 ao?t 2018 ? 08:19, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> this early input has to be reviewed and endorsed quickly. those in EPDP >>> team should be familiar with it. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Ayden F?rdeline >>> Date: dim. 26 ao?t 2018 ? 03:14 >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Written Input to the EPDP >>> To: >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The Expedited Policy Development Process Team that is >>> considering the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data has >>> invited the community to submit written input on this topic. The deadline >>> for submissions is 29 August. >>> >>> The NCSG representatives on this team are currently drafting a statement >>> for submission on behalf of our Stakeholder Group. You can find our current >>> draft on Google Docs here: >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16j1QDoHCfTSoRuQADkWa5sNXrr1MxTd5AoY2UkPwgO4/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Your feedback is warmly welcomed. Can you please review this draft >>> comment and provide any suggested edits by Monday, so that we can finalise >>> our input. Thank you. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Aug 28 13:12:17 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:12:17 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: <584e5317-be19-5fe4-0802-d40fc74e3663@kathykleiman.com> References: <584e5317-be19-5fe4-0802-d40fc74e3663@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks Kathy for raising those concerns alongside all the solid arguments. I could not have done better. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ (Ekue) Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 27 Aug 2018, at 05:20, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Hi Elsa, > > With the deadline still pending last week, I went ahead, printed off the 300 page report, and spent hours digging into it. I also participated in Subgroup 2 -- Legal and Regulatory -- and was dismayed by the lack of data, systematic analysis, or serious consideration of views other than those being directly represented by members of the subgroup (nearly all active members representing large, incumbent New gTLD Registries who want to register hundreds (or more) New gTLDs). > I remember our goals in the first Applicant Guidebook in the late 2000's -- how excited we were to see Internationalized Domain Names, and our great hope that Applicants for New gTLDs would be from countries and regions underrepresented (and, in some cases, completely unrepresented) as registries in the existing (legacy) gTLDs. In this next round (or the many next rounds the SubPro Working Group envisions), I see many of these hopes being dashed and am very concerned. > The devil is in the details -- in the very procedural rules they are setting out. I am deeply concerned that with insufficient notice and guidance, smaller and more diverse entities will not be able to apply. I'm equally concerned that with no limits to applications, or even the proposed "first-come, first-served" system (which I'll rename "the all you can gobble" approach), there will be no time for the Global South to catch up -- everything could well be given away by then. > > Extensive comments! More can be added, particularly on the issues you and Bruna highlighted. If you can link these principles and important discussion to specific sections of the Initial Report in which they are discussed, it will help to ensure that our comments, and your important thoughts, will receive the credit they deserve when comments are compiled by staff into a report. > > I'm out of the office for this last week of summer, but otherwise around. Best, Kathy > > On 8/25/2018 8:53 PM, Elsa S wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Any chance we could meet this coming week to fix the document? I?ll touch base with Robin and maybe Kathy to see if they could join us to answer some of our questions on the doc. In the meantime, I?ll be reviewing the doc and seeing if we could add any further points. >> >> Let me know if interested! I can set up a google doc. >> >> E. >> ? >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:27 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: >> Thanks Farzaneh, that is good for us. >> I touched base few days ago with Elsa and Bruna regarding the status of our draft and we are currently progressing. I think Kathy is also helping for the review and Robin will be consulted too. >> as reminder we organized few weeks ago a NCSG webinar (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Webinars ) on the report presented by Robin where she highlighted the most important and relevant topics for us, I advice everyone to listen to it. while the report is 300 pages (there are appendices etc), it can be easier to listen to the webinar and check the spreadsheet made by the WG with all the recommendations and questions organized by topic. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 01:31, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : >> we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Emily Barabas >> >> >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> >> We are writing to let you know that the public comment period for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been extended. Public comments will now be accepted through 26 September 2018. Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the relevant members of your group? >> >> >> Best regards, >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >> >> >> From: Nathalie Peregrine > >> Date: Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 >> To: farzaneh badii > >> Cc: "jeff.neuman at comlaude.com " >, Cheryl Langdon-Orr >, Steve Chan >, Julie Hedlund >, Emily Barabas >, Maryam Bakoshi >, "gnso-secs at icann.org " > >> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment >> >> >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public Comment [icann.org] . We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to the success of this PDP. >> 1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG >> The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to the existingIntroduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains [gnso.icann.org] policy recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. >> >> 2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment >> The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to modifications to those positions as a result of community input. >> >> In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were generally agreed to by members that participated in the different Work Tracks, support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall Working Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. >> >> After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues its Final Report. >> >> Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we may fully consider it in our further deliberations. >> >> Best regards, >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >> >> >> Nathalie Peregrine >> >> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org? >> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann >> >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> -- >> -- >> >> Elsa Saade >> Consultant >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 17:14:23 2018 From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 11:14:23 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Deadline Extended: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - Public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interested! Em s?b, 25 de ago de 2018 21:54, Elsa S escreveu: > Hi all, > > Any chance we could meet this coming week to fix the document? I?ll touch > base with Robin and maybe Kathy to see if they could join us to answer some > of our questions on the doc. In the meantime, I?ll be reviewing the doc and > seeing if we could add any further points. > > Let me know if interested! I can set up a google doc. > > E. > ? > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:27 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Thanks Farzaneh, that is good for us. >> I touched base few days ago with Elsa and Bruna regarding the status of >> our draft and we are currently progressing. I think Kathy is also helping >> for the review and Robin will be consulted too. >> as reminder we organized few weeks ago a NCSG webinar ( >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Webinars) on >> the report presented by Robin where she highlighted the most important and >> relevant topics for us, I advice everyone to listen to it. while the report >> is 300 pages (there are appendices etc), it can be easier to listen to the >> webinar and check the spreadsheet made by the WG with all the >> recommendations and questions organized by topic. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 01:31, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> we got some time for this huge document to comment on. A big Phew. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Emily Barabas >>> >>> >>> Dear Farzaneh, >>> >>> >>> >>> We are writing to let you know that the public comment period >>> >>> for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report has been >>> extended. Public comments will now be accepted through *26 September >>> 2018*. Can you kindly assist in sharing this information with the >>> relevant members of your group? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Nathalie Peregrine >>> *Date: *Wednesday, 4 July 2018 at 04:50 >>> *To: *farzaneh badii >>> *Cc: *"jeff.neuman at comlaude.com" , Cheryl >>> Langdon-Orr , Steve Chan , >>> Julie Hedlund , Emily Barabas < >>> emily.barabas at icann.org>, Maryam Bakoshi , " >>> gnso-secs at icann.org" >>> *Subject: *New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report - >>> Public Comment >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Farzaneh, >>> >>> >>> >>> We write to you as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent >>> Procedures Working Group (WG), which is tasked with calling upon the >>> community?s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to >>> consider potential changes that may be needed to the existing 2007 >>> Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations and >>> implementation. We are pleased to share that the Working Group has reached >>> an important milestone by publishing its Initial Report for Public >>> Comment [icann.org] >>> . >>> We would like to strongly encourage you to review this report and provide >>> feedback through public comment on the draft preliminary recommendations, >>> options, and questions for community feedback. Your input is essential to >>> the success of this PDP. >>> >>> *1. Background on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG* >>> >>> The GNSO?s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was >>> chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process >>> (PDP), is seeking to determine what, if any, changes may need to be made to >>> the existing *Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains* >>> [gnso.icann.org] >>> policy >>> recommendations from 8 August 2007 as well as the final Applicant >>> Guidebook [newgtlds.icann.org] >>> >>> dated June 2012. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the >>> GNSO Council and ICANN Board have ?been designed to produce systemized and >>> ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,? those >>> policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New >>> gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy >>> recommendations via a policy development process. The PDP WG created 5 Work >>> Tracks that are responsible for considering the subjects within its >>> charter. The PDP WG sought community input through two community comment >>> periods. The Working Group has produced its Initial Report, which includes >>> material from the full Working Group and Work Tracks 1-4. Work Track 5, >>> focused on Geographic Names at the Top-Level, was established later than >>> the other Work Tracks and will produce a separate Initial Report. >>> >>> >>> >>> *2. Information about the Initial Report and the Public Comment* >>> >>> The objective of this Initial Report is to document the Working Group?s >>> deliberations on charter issues and preliminary recommendations, potential >>> options for recommendations, as well as specific questions for which the >>> Working Group is seeking input. Given the large number of issues, and the >>> thousands of hours spent on addressing the 2012 New gTLD Program and >>> improvements that can be made to the program moving forward, unlike other >>> Initial Reports, this one does not contain a ?Statement of level of >>> consensus for the recommendations presented in the Initial Report.? The >>> Co-Chairs not only believed that it was premature to measure the level of >>> consensus of the Working Group members of dozens of recommendations >>> contained within the Initial Report, but that doing so could have the >>> unintended consequence of locking Working Group members into positions of >>> support or opposition prior to soliciting public comment from the community >>> on those recommendations. To form such definitive positions at this early >>> of a stage could have the adverse effect of being less open to >>> modifications to those positions as a result of community input. >>> >>> >>> >>> In addition, though many of the preliminary recommendations were >>> generally agreed to by members that participated in the different Work >>> Tracks, support has not been assessed amongst the members of the overall >>> Working Group. The Overall Working Group has not sought to form definitive >>> positions on each of these issues at this stage. Therefore, any language in >>> this report that suggests that the Working Group or any of its Work Tracks >>> is making a recommendation should be read as merely a rough assessment by >>> the Working Group Co-Chairs or Work Track leads. >>> >>> >>> >>> After a comprehensive review of public comments received on this report, >>> the Working Group will deliberate further on the preliminary >>> recommendations contained within the Initial Report. It is possible that as >>> a result of the deliberations, there may be supplemental reports released >>> by the Working Group seeking additional public comments. Once all of that >>> is completed, the Co-Chairs will conduct any formal consensus call(s) at >>> the plenary level, on all recommendations before the Working Group issues >>> its Final Report. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to any >>> comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to >>> provide to our WG. While we of course welcome input on any area of the >>> report, we would like to stress that given the extensive number of topics >>> and preliminary outcomes, you should not feel compelled to respond to every >>> single preliminary recommendation, option, and question. If possible, >>> please submit your comments and input to us by 5 September 2018 so that we >>> may fully consider it in our further deliberations. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Nathalie Peregrine >>> >>> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>> >>> >>> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann >>> >>> >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and >>> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Aug 27 03:03:00 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 20:03:00 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] PLEASE READ: Process going for In-Reply-To: <5959441c-49ef-0157-96ba-12ce262442bb@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <5959441c-49ef-0157-96ba-12ce262442bb@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <4ea09c76-a323-d05c-30a2-4b5003b53dad@mail.utoronto.ca> whoops sorry, old address.... SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] PLEASE READ: Process going for Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 18:54:55 -0400 From: Stephanie Perrin To: NCSG-Policy Here is what I have so far....tons more work to do on it. SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] PLEASE READ: Process going for Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 18:37:41 -0400 From: Stephanie Perrin To: rds-whois2-rt at icann.org Unfortunately I am far from finished going through the entire document with a careful read, you all must be speed readers compared to me.? Here is the first batch of comments, I will continue but may I suggest you agree to take comments up to Midnight local time?? fairer and since I doubt anyone is logging on at midnight UTC to start reviewing, seems more sensible.? May I suggest in future that we work in google drive or some common interface that shows all our comments?? This is very inefficient. Otherwise those of us who are uncomfortable with some sections still will be driven to dissent.? That would be most unfortunate. Stephanie Perrin On 2018-08-25 00:58, Alan Greenberg wrote: > Next Monday, we will have the plenary meeting to finalize the draft > report contents and in particular the recommendations. The meeting is > scheduled for 2 hours. > > *_The deadline for submitting objections to be discussed during the > meeting is 23:59 UTC on Sunday, 26 August 2018. > > _*On Monday we will review any objections or alternate language and > determine the level of consensus for each recommendation. There are a > lot of sections and recommendations to cover so we will have to be > brief and specific. We will also establish priority level for the > recommendations. > > Although we will strive for full (unanimous consensus), it is not > required and our ToR gives guidelines for this. > > Anyone who is not on the call and has not explicitly identified an > issue is deemed to be in agreement with the current text. > > *_If any written statement of objection or dissenting opinions are to > be included in the published draft report, they must be submitted no > later that 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 29 August 2018. > > _*Please be on time (or early!) for the meeting so that we can begin > on the hour. > > Alan > > > _______________________________________________ > RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list > RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RDS - Draft Report v1.8 17 Augustsp2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 3445197 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 05:23:30 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:23:30 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] The NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections In-Reply-To: References: <3341A3DC-CB65-49B6-A73F-E8D512380256@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, I putting here a short SOI to help for introduction with CSG about the nomination, while working on more elaborated one when the process starts (Expect that CSG will ask for confcall to interview) "I will be honored if I am trusted by NCPH and nominated for GNSO Council chair election. I would like to put my name as a candidate as I want to continue the work initiated by the current council leadership team led by Heather, and ensure that continues for the coming term. Working within the leadership team and collaborating on several projects, I got a better sense of roles and responsibilities of GNSO chair. I understand that the chair needs the trust of all groups within GNSO and as vice-chair I did my best to do my role. I commit for the workload and time needed for the chair role. I am aware of the challenges ahead of the GNSO and the council on PDP front and if elected I would like to work with the leadership team, council as whole and SG/C chairs to work on improvement and solving those issues. " Best, Rafik Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 08:17, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi Farzaneh, > > Thanks, the process looks ok to me. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 24 ao?t 2018 ? 01:16, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> Hi everybody >> >> I have made the necessary changes in the document addressing the >> concerns. Mainly added clarifications about when the vice chair is running >> for chair and that the NCPH should collectively put the nomination forward >> and no stakeholder group can do so individually. >> >> If no objection, I will send this document to CSG tomorrow. >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:51 AM farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> This has no bearing on our charter nor does it prevent the future >>> leaders to re open the issue and discuss again but I suggest it won't be >>> before each election. Because it is supposed to bring some certainty as to >>> how nomination should and selection between the two stakeholder group >>> should take place. Amendments should be made if the process doesn't work >>> and needs clarification. In case there is any conflict between this >>> document and GNSO procedures, ICANN Bylaws or NCSG charter, they will >>> prevail. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:13 AM Farell FOLLY >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Farzaneh, >>>> >>>> Thanks for drafting this. It looks good to me. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, I have one question: To what extent are we liable to this >>>> document (let's say MoU) in the future? Will it be bound to our respective >>>> charters? What will prevent both the new chairs (CSG and NCSG) to try and >>>> elaborate a new one just before the next election? >>>> >>>> I believe it is a live document and amendements are always permissible, >>>> however; I wish we have a statement that determines how amendement process >>>> should be undertaken and how this is connected to our charter. >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY >>>> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 17:30, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello PC members >>>> >>>> Here is a draft NCPH Nomination Process for the GNSO Chair Elections. >>>> I drafted this and CSG leaders commented on it. We can hopefully get >>>> this approved soon. It is a straightforward process. I will share it with >>>> NCSG members at the same time to speed up the process. >>>> >>>> Here is the Google Doc Link: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQoaqmYeA7wABzhQfXh0QZXo_Cx07yypxjza9AyeTYs/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 05:46:20 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:46:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposing Nomination of Rafik Dammak for GNSO chair to CSG Message-ID: All, As you know the Noncontracted Party House can nominate a candidate to run for GNSO chair position. Below is Rafik's Statement of Interest, please weigh in on supporting Rafik's nomination, I will also send this to NCSG mailing list and then we can suggest his name to CSG. If I don't hear any objections by Wednesday end of the day, I will inform CSG that NCSG would like to put Rafik as a nominee of NCPH for GNSO chair position on Thursday. Rafik's SOI "I will be honored if I am trusted by NCPH and nominated for GNSO Council chair election. I would like to put my name as a candidate as I want to continue the work initiated by the current council leadership team led by Heather, and ensure that continues for the coming term. Working within the leadership team and collaborating on several projects, I got a better sense of roles and responsibilities of GNSO chair. I understand that the chair needs the trust of all groups within GNSO and as vice-chair I did my best to do my role. I commit for the workload and time needed for the chair role. I am aware of the challenges ahead of the GNSO and the council on PDP front and if elected I would like to work with the leadership team, council as whole and SG/C chairs to work on improvement and solving those issues. " Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 07:31:02 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 06:31:02 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposing Nomination of Rafik Dammak for GNSO chair to CSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh. I support. @Rafik, good luck! Warm regards, Tanya On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 04:46, farzaneh badii wrote: > All, > > As you know the Noncontracted Party House can nominate a candidate to run > for GNSO chair position. Below is Rafik's Statement of Interest, please > weigh in on supporting Rafik's nomination, I will also send this to NCSG > mailing list and then we can suggest his name to CSG. If I don't hear any > objections by Wednesday end of the day, I will inform CSG that NCSG would > like to put Rafik as a nominee of NCPH for GNSO chair position on Thursday. > > Rafik's SOI > > "I will be honored if I am trusted by NCPH and nominated for GNSO Council > chair election. I would like to put my name as a candidate as I want to > continue the work initiated by the current council leadership team led by > Heather, and ensure that continues for the coming term. Working within > the leadership team and collaborating on several projects, I got a better > sense of roles and responsibilities of GNSO chair. I understand that the > chair needs the trust of all groups within GNSO and as vice-chair I did > my best to do my role. I commit for the workload and time needed for the > chair role. I am aware of the challenges ahead of the GNSO and the council > on PDP front and if elected I would like to work with the leadership team, > council as whole and SG/C chairs to work on improvement and solving those > issues. " > > > Best > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 08:18:12 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 07:18:12 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposing Nomination of Rafik Dammak for GNSO chair to CSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <910B013A-939C-456D-978C-D633521FE8CD@gmail.com> My support! ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Aug 29, 2018, at 6:31 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Thanks Farzaneh. I support. > @Rafik, good luck! > Warm regards, > Tanya > >> On Wed 29. Aug 2018 at 04:46, farzaneh badii wrote: >> All, >> >> As you know the Noncontracted Party House can nominate a candidate to run for GNSO chair position. Below is Rafik's Statement of Interest, please weigh in on supporting Rafik's nomination, I will also send this to NCSG mailing list and then we can suggest his name to CSG. If I don't hear any objections by Wednesday end of the day, I will inform CSG that NCSG would like to put Rafik as a nominee of NCPH for GNSO chair position on Thursday. >> >> Rafik's SOI >> >> "I will be honored if I am trusted by NCPH and nominated for GNSO Council chair election. I would like to put my name as a candidate as I want to continue the work initiated by the current council leadership team led by Heather, and ensure that continues for the coming term. Working within the leadership team and collaborating on several projects, I got a better sense of roles and responsibilities of GNSO chair. I understand that the chair needs the trust of all groups within GNSO and as vice-chair I did my best to do my role. I commit for the workload and time needed for the chair role. I am aware of the challenges ahead of the GNSO and the council on PDP front and if elected I would like to work with the leadership team, council as whole and SG/C chairs to work on improvement and solving those issues. " >> >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Wed Aug 29 13:13:37 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:13:37 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposing Nomination of Rafik Dammak for GNSO chair to CSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support this nomination. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ (Ekue) Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 29 Aug 2018, at 03:46, farzaneh badii wrote: > > All, > > As you know the Noncontracted Party House can nominate a candidate to run for GNSO chair position. Below is Rafik's Statement of Interest, please weigh in on supporting Rafik's nomination, I will also send this to NCSG mailing list and then we can suggest his name to CSG. If I don't hear any objections by Wednesday end of the day, I will inform CSG that NCSG would like to put Rafik as a nominee of NCPH for GNSO chair position on Thursday. > > Rafik's SOI > > "I will be honored if I am trusted by NCPH and nominated for GNSO Council chair election. I would like to put my name as a candidate as I want to continue the work initiated by the current council leadership team led by Heather, and ensure that continues for the coming term. Working within the leadership team and collaborating on several projects, I got a better sense of roles and responsibilities of GNSO chair. I understand that the chair needs the trust of all groups within GNSO and as vice-chair I did my best to do my role. I commit for the workload and time needed for the chair role. I am aware of the challenges ahead of the GNSO and the council on PDP front and if elected I would like to work with the leadership team, council as whole and SG/C chairs to work on improvement and solving those issues. " > > > Best > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Aug 29 22:18:29 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 19:18:29 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposing Nomination of Rafik Dammak for GNSO chair to CSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I too support nominating Rafik. It would be great to have him at the top of the pyramid. Ayden On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:13, Farell FOLLY wrote: > I support this nomination. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > > ____________________________________ > > (Ekue) Farell FOLLY > NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee > linkedin.com/in/farellf > >> On 29 Aug 2018, at 03:46, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> All, >> >> As you know the Noncontracted Party House can nominate a candidate to run for GNSO chair position. Below is Rafik's Statement of Interest, please weigh in on supporting Rafik's nomination, I will also send this to NCSG mailing list and then we can suggest his name to CSG. If I don't hear any objections by Wednesday end of the day, I will inform CSG that NCSG would like to put Rafik as a nominee of NCPH for GNSO chair position on Thursday. >> >> Rafik's SOI >> >> "I will be honored if I am trusted by NCPH and nominated for GNSO Council chair election. I would like to put my name as a candidate as I want to continue the work initiated by the current council leadership team led by Heather, and ensure that continues for the coming term. Working within the leadership team and collaborating on several projects, I got a better sense of roles and responsibilities of GNSO chair. I understand that the chair needs the trust of all groups within GNSO and as vice-chair I did my best to do my role. I commit for the workload and time needed for the chair role. I am aware of the challenges ahead of the GNSO and the council on PDP front and if elected I would like to work with the leadership team, council as whole and SG/C chairs to work on improvement and solving those issues. " >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 22:28:03 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:28:03 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposing Nomination of Rafik Dammak for GNSO chair to CSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17DFC0A1-7894-4F68-A7D0-8B92550AF5E6@gmail.com> I re-express my support. Steam ahead! Cheers, Mart?n > On 29 Aug 2018, at 16:18, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I too support nominating Rafik. > > It would be great to have him at the top of the pyramid. > > Ayden > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:13, Farell FOLLY > wrote: >> I support this nomination. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY >> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 29 Aug 2018, at 03:46, farzaneh badii > wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> As you know the Noncontracted Party House can nominate a candidate to run for GNSO chair position. Below is Rafik's Statement of Interest, please weigh in on supporting Rafik's nomination, I will also send this to NCSG mailing list and then we can suggest his name to CSG. If I don't hear any objections by Wednesday end of the day, I will inform CSG that NCSG would like to put Rafik as a nominee of NCPH for GNSO chair position on Thursday. >>> >>> Rafik's SOI >>> >>> "I will be honored if I am trusted by NCPH and nominated for GNSO Council chair election. I would like to put my name as a candidate as I want to continue the work initiated by the current council leadership team led by Heather, and ensure that continues for the coming term. Working within the leadership team and collaborating on several projects, I got a better sense of roles and responsibilities of GNSO chair. I understand that the chair needs the trust of all groups within GNSO and as vice-chair I did my best to do my role. I commit for the workload and time needed for the chair role. I am aware of the challenges ahead of the GNSO and the council on PDP front and if elected I would like to work with the leadership team, council as whole and SG/C chairs to work on improvement and solving those issues. " >>> >>> >>> Best >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 06:21:52 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 23:21:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional Message-ID: NCPH is being asked again by Mary to hold intersessional in 2019 or not. BC already has said no and hold it in 2020, the CSG EC and others have not responded. There was some decision from NCUC EC not to have it in 2019 but hold it in (2020) but that is because I had the impression that this issue was resolved and this was also NCSG decision but seems like Arsene, Ayden and Stephanie are in favor of holding it in 2019 as well (all happened on the NCUC mailing list). You need to have a discussion here, perhaps on NCSG mailing list and tell Mary the decision. We can just say we are undecided. I cannot hold off the decision until Stephanie becomes chair because Mary needs to know now. I suggest you also tell NPOC and NCUC that you are revisiting the issue to see if they change their mind. Since I think it was implied that I should not decide since I am outgoing (despite having discussed this in Feb and there were no comments on it), I have decided not to engage with this discussion and leave it to you. Just let me know. If I don't hear anything or there is no decision by Wednesday next week I will let Mary know that NCSG is undecided. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 07:18:13 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 13:18:13 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Thanks, Farzaneh. I expressed my opinion before as we should hold the intersessional in 2020 if we want really to change it. I heard carefully to the arguments made but I am still convinced that doesn't make sense to have it in 2019 while we may sense a lukewarm position in the other side too. I don't think you should withdraw from deliberations. You are still a member of PC and you got to participate till the end of your term. committee work doesn't stop for few weeks and it is a continuity. Best, Rafik Le ven. 31 ao?t 2018 ? 12:22, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > NCPH is being asked again by Mary to hold intersessional in 2019 or not. > BC already has said no and hold it in 2020, the CSG EC and others have not > responded. There was some decision from NCUC EC not to have it in 2019 but > hold it in (2020) but that is because I had the impression that this issue > was resolved and this was also NCSG decision but seems like Arsene, Ayden > and Stephanie are in favor of holding it in 2019 as well (all happened on > the NCUC mailing list). > > You need to have a discussion here, perhaps on NCSG mailing list and tell > Mary the decision. We can just say we are undecided. I cannot hold off the > decision until Stephanie becomes chair because Mary needs to know now. I > suggest you also tell NPOC and NCUC that you are revisiting the issue to > see if they change their mind. > > Since I think it was implied that I should not decide since I am outgoing > (despite having discussed this in Feb and there were no comments on it), I > have decided not to engage with this discussion and leave it to you. > > Just let me know. If I don't hear anything or there is no decision by > Wednesday next week I will let Mary know that NCSG is undecided. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 09:16:00 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:16:00 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All, I am with Rafik here. I don't support having intersessional in 2019. While I agree that they were a bit better in 2018, I still think it "mountain gave birth to a mouse" situation in both 2018 and 2019, taking into account how much time and effort it takes to prepare them and what kind of poor outcome, or lack thereof, we have. I do believe that it's easier to negotiate with CGS during ICANN meetings -- this is where we got the things done (things that were supposed to get done at the intersessional). So I would strongly object to submission the decision about holding intersessional in 2019 as NCSG PC. Also, agree with Rafik that Farzaneh should stay in deliberations as the chair term is still not over -- but of course we can't force her to do so. Cheers, Tanya On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 07:18, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks, Farzaneh. > I expressed my opinion before as we should hold the intersessional in 2020 > if we want really to change it. I heard carefully to the arguments made but > I am still convinced that doesn't make sense to have it in 2019 while we > may sense a lukewarm position in the other side too. > I don't think you should withdraw from deliberations. You are still a > member of PC and you got to participate till the end of your term. > committee work doesn't stop for few weeks and it is a continuity. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le ven. 31 ao?t 2018 ? 12:22, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> NCPH is being asked again by Mary to hold intersessional in 2019 or not. >> BC already has said no and hold it in 2020, the CSG EC and others have not >> responded. There was some decision from NCUC EC not to have it in 2019 but >> hold it in (2020) but that is because I had the impression that this issue >> was resolved and this was also NCSG decision but seems like Arsene, Ayden >> and Stephanie are in favor of holding it in 2019 as well (all happened on >> the NCUC mailing list). >> >> You need to have a discussion here, perhaps on NCSG mailing list and tell >> Mary the decision. We can just say we are undecided. I cannot hold off the >> decision until Stephanie becomes chair because Mary needs to know now. I >> suggest you also tell NPOC and NCUC that you are revisiting the issue to >> see if they change their mind. >> >> Since I think it was implied that I should not decide since I am outgoing >> (despite having discussed this in Feb and there were no comments on it), I >> have decided not to engage with this discussion and leave it to you. >> >> Just let me know. If I don't hear anything or there is no decision by >> Wednesday next week I will let Mary know that NCSG is undecided. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 12:15:37 2018 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:15:37 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: After reading the various exchanges it sounds like we could be more effective using strategies other than the intersessional so we should use 2019 to regroup, make sure we are better prepared for dialogue and negotiation with key stakeholders. Therefore I would support 2020 for the next intersessional. Also we should have some clear policy outcomes going in to the next intersessional. best regards On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 6:16 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > All, > I am with Rafik here. I don't support having intersessional in 2019. While > I agree that they were a bit better in 2018, I still think it "mountain > gave birth to a mouse" situation in both 2018 and 2019, taking into account > how much time and effort it takes to prepare them and what kind of poor > outcome, or lack thereof, we have. I do believe that it's easier to > negotiate with CGS during ICANN meetings -- this is where we got the things > done (things that were supposed to get done at the intersessional). So I > would strongly object to submission the decision about holding > intersessional in 2019 as NCSG PC. > Also, agree with Rafik that Farzaneh should stay in deliberations as the > chair term is still not over -- but of course we can't force her to do so. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 07:18, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks, Farzaneh. >> I expressed my opinion before as we should hold the intersessional in >> 2020 if we want really to change it. I heard carefully to the arguments >> made but I am still convinced that doesn't make sense to have it in 2019 >> while we may sense a lukewarm position in the other side too. >> I don't think you should withdraw from deliberations. You are still a >> member of PC and you got to participate till the end of your term. >> committee work doesn't stop for few weeks and it is a continuity. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> Le ven. 31 ao?t 2018 ? 12:22, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> NCPH is being asked again by Mary to hold intersessional in 2019 or not. >>> BC already has said no and hold it in 2020, the CSG EC and others have not >>> responded. There was some decision from NCUC EC not to have it in 2019 but >>> hold it in (2020) but that is because I had the impression that this issue >>> was resolved and this was also NCSG decision but seems like Arsene, Ayden >>> and Stephanie are in favor of holding it in 2019 as well (all happened on >>> the NCUC mailing list). >>> >>> You need to have a discussion here, perhaps on NCSG mailing list and >>> tell Mary the decision. We can just say we are undecided. I cannot hold off >>> the decision until Stephanie becomes chair because Mary needs to know now. >>> I suggest you also tell NPOC and NCUC that you are revisiting the issue to >>> see if they change their mind. >>> >>> Since I think it was implied that I should not decide since I am >>> outgoing (despite having discussed this in Feb and there were no comments >>> on it), I have decided not to engage with this discussion and leave it to >>> you. >>> >>> Just let me know. If I don't hear anything or there is no decision by >>> Wednesday next week I will let Mary know that NCSG is undecided. >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Aug 31 13:44:09 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:44:09 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think it is important to remember that the Intersessional is currently a part of the core budget; if we reject the opportunity now, there is no guarantees that the line item will return in the budget for FY20. I think it would be something ICANN org would seek to cut out, reasoning, if we did not need it in FY19, why would we need it in FY20? I think it would be very regrettable if this happened. Best wishes, Ayden > On 31 Aug 2018, at 06:18, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks, Farzaneh. > I expressed my opinion before as we should hold the intersessional in 2020 if we want really to change it. I heard carefully to the arguments made but I am still convinced that doesn't make sense to have it in 2019 while we may sense a lukewarm position in the other side too. > I don't think you should withdraw from deliberations. You are still a member of PC and you got to participate till the end of your term. committee work doesn't stop for few weeks and it is a continuity. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 31 ao?t 2018 ? 12:22, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > >> NCPH is being asked again by Mary to hold intersessional in 2019 or not. BC already has said no and hold it in 2020, the CSG EC and others have not responded. There was some decision from NCUC EC not to have it in 2019 but hold it in (2020) but that is because I had the impression that this issue was resolved and this was also NCSG decision but seems like Arsene, Ayden and Stephanie are in favor of holding it in 2019 as well (all happened on the NCUC mailing list). >> >> You need to have a discussion here, perhaps on NCSG mailing list and tell Mary the decision. We can just say we are undecided. I cannot hold off the decision until Stephanie becomes chair because Mary needs to know now. I suggest you also tell NPOC and NCUC that you are revisiting the issue to see if they change their mind. >> >> Since I think it was implied that I should not decide since I am outgoing (despite having discussed this in Feb and there were no comments on it), I have decided not to engage with this discussion and leave it to you. >> >> Just let me know. If I don't hear anything or there is no decision by Wednesday next week I will let Mary know that NCSG is undecided. >> >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 14:16:06 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:16:06 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am not sure how holding intersessional in 2019 would save us from the possible cuts in 2020 as it would be a new fiscal year - if they would want to cut it, they would cut it no matter what and will have more reasons to do so if 2019 would have the same "productivity" as years before. Cheers, Tanya On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 13:44, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I think it is important to remember that the Intersessional is currently a > part of the core budget; if we reject the opportunity now, there is no > guarantees that the line item will return in the budget for FY20. I think > it would be something ICANN org would seek to cut out, reasoning, if we did > not need it in FY19, why would we need it in FY20? I think it would be very > regrettable if this happened. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > On 31 Aug 2018, at 06:18, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks, Farzaneh. > I expressed my opinion before as we should hold the intersessional in 2020 > if we want really to change it. I heard carefully to the arguments made but > I am still convinced that doesn't make sense to have it in 2019 while we > may sense a lukewarm position in the other side too. > I don't think you should withdraw from deliberations. You are still a > member of PC and you got to participate till the end of your term. > committee work doesn't stop for few weeks and it is a continuity. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le ven. 31 ao?t 2018 ? 12:22, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> NCPH is being asked again by Mary to hold intersessional in 2019 or not. >> BC already has said no and hold it in 2020, the CSG EC and others have not >> responded. There was some decision from NCUC EC not to have it in 2019 but >> hold it in (2020) but that is because I had the impression that this issue >> was resolved and this was also NCSG decision but seems like Arsene, Ayden >> and Stephanie are in favor of holding it in 2019 as well (all happened on >> the NCUC mailing list). >> >> You need to have a discussion here, perhaps on NCSG mailing list and tell >> Mary the decision. We can just say we are undecided. I cannot hold off the >> decision until Stephanie becomes chair because Mary needs to know now. I >> suggest you also tell NPOC and NCUC that you are revisiting the issue to >> see if they change their mind. >> >> Since I think it was implied that I should not decide since I am outgoing >> (despite having discussed this in Feb and there were no comments on it), I >> have decided not to engage with this discussion and leave it to you. >> >> Just let me know. If I don't hear anything or there is no decision by >> Wednesday next week I will let Mary know that NCSG is undecided. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: