From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 2 01:09:15 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 08:09:15 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review comments in the coming days. Best, Rafik 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi all, > > > some updates and actions to be taken quickly: > >> >> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the deadline >> is *the 2nd Feb*: https://docs.google.com/d >> ocument/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >> >> >> > please review the draft asap. > >> >> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I >> think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st Feb* >> >> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. > >> >> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the >> deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for clarification >> >> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. > >> >> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide any >> feedback >> >> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to make > it a NCSG one https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsI > xlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , please review asap > >> >> - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/b >> log/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-fee >> dback-on-proposed-compliance-models >> >> , deadline is the *29th **Jan *. >> >> >> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly here > since the deadline is the 29th Jan. > > Best, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at intpolicy.com Fri Feb 2 10:15:48 2018 From: matthew at intpolicy.com (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:15:48 -0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR webinar tomorrow Friday Message-ID: Details: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-01-25-en Matthew --- Matthew Shears + 44 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com From matthew.shears at board.icann.org Fri Feb 2 18:08:06 2018 From: matthew.shears at board.icann.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 08:08:06 -0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Feb 2 GDPR Webinar slides Message-ID: Best! --- Matthew Shears + 44 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GPRD Models graphic_09.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 764247 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Working Draft Non-Paper -- Selected Interim GDPR Compliance Models - 1 February 2018 - revised v1.xlsx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 14337 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Feb 4 03:48:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 20:48:37 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Nomcom review draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, all- I saw this on our main mailing list as I was cleaning out my inbox. It needs some more work in my opinion. ? Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 27 January 2018 11:01 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Hello all > > Please review this Nomcom review draft input by Liz Orembo > > This deadline is super close 29jan and I hope we get as many comments > as possible > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing > > Best, > > Renata > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Feb 4 03:51:49 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 20:51:49 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [NCPH-Intersessional2018] Suggestion to the process of selecting an NCPH board member In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just thinking out loud before I consider replying to this thread, I think we need a 'consensus view' on a path forward... perhaps we could try to piece one together here? Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 3 February 2018 9:58 AM, gangadhar panday via NCPH-Intersessional2018 wrote: > I agree with Raoul's view. > > On Feb 2, 2018 11:13 PM, Raoul Plommer wrote: > >> Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round. >> Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better. >> >> Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. >> >> -Raoul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Feb 4 04:17:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 21:17:37 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the comment which the GNSO Council submitted on this topic captures these arguments well, so I am not sure there is a need for the NCSG to submit a separate one. However if we do submit one under separate cover I would make it clear that frontloading all the important sessions into day one or two of the meeting (because some stakeholders do not attend the entire meeting) is problematic and an unwise scheduling decision, in my humble opinion. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 30 January 2018 8:17 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Hi, > > I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing > > Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for submission or not? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ------------------------ > *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* > Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), > CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 04:41:10 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 21:41:10 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [NCPH-Intersessional2018] Suggestion to the process of selecting an NCPH board member In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden Before starting the conversation Rafik and I have to talk to a couple of people who were involved with this last year and then we can start discussing the counter-proposal. We will do it this week. Farzaneh On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Just thinking out loud before I consider replying to this thread, I think > we need a 'consensus view' on a path forward... perhaps we could try to > piece one together here? > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 3 February 2018 9:58 AM, gangadhar panday via NCPH-Intersessional2018 < > ncph-intersessional2018 at icann.org> wrote: > > I agree with Raoul's view. > > On Feb 2, 2018 11:13 PM, Raoul Plommer wrote: > > Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two > candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round > results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more > candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one > candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round. > Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the > NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own > stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH > councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying > to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better. > > Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure from > inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first round > can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. > > -Raoul > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Feb 4 04:46:59 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 21:46:59 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [NCPH-Intersessional2018] Suggestion to the process of selecting an NCPH board member In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0gAcW4PU25dWw-B1n6O1nGHy0yMEC-rNieSUuPgPY3yr6LnHT0GJ4CSwp6ltOlQYGHdBIv3v-vjqi8Lo5jgKiLYkz0rO0UIkCYyo6pBOjtc=@ferdeline.com> Thanks Farzi. I do not remember this being a fun conversation in Iceland, but can take a look through my emails if required to see if there are any relevant threads. From what I recall this was held on day three of the Intersessional; there is no transcript and the session was held behind closed doors, but we did use the mics and there was a recording taken - perhaps ICANN staff have it. Indeed, I have a feeling Ozan emailed us a link to it on Box, but my memory might be failing me and that might be the recording for a different session... Ayden P.S. Just boarding a flight now, so will be offline until Monday -------- Original Message -------- On 4 February 2018 2:41 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Ayden > > Before starting the conversation Rafik and I have to talk to a couple of people who were involved with this last year and then we can start discussing the counter-proposal. We will do it this week. > > Farzaneh > > On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Just thinking out loud before I consider replying to this thread, I think we need a 'consensus view' on a path forward... perhaps we could try to piece one together here? >> >> Ayden >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 3 February 2018 9:58 AM, gangadhar panday via NCPH-Intersessional2018 wrote: >> >>> I agree with Raoul's view. >>> >>> On Feb 2, 2018 11:13 PM, Raoul Plommer wrote: >>> >>>> Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round. >>>> Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better. >>>> >>>> Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. >>>> >>>> -Raoul >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sun Feb 4 08:56:57 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 15:56:57 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [NCPH-Intersessional2018] Suggestion to the process of selecting an NCPH board member In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, We agreed during the session I co-chaired to have a small team(Wolf-Ulrich, Steve, Farzaneh and myself) to work on the process before presenting it to NCSG/CSG. To prepare the session, I did dig in mailing lists and recordings but I think we are going to start with the strawperson we had since Iceland. Best, Rafik On Feb 4, 2018 11:41 AM, "farzaneh badii" wrote: Hi Ayden Before starting the conversation Rafik and I have to talk to a couple of people who were involved with this last year and then we can start discussing the counter-proposal. We will do it this week. Farzaneh On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Just thinking out loud before I consider replying to this thread, I think > we need a 'consensus view' on a path forward... perhaps we could try to > piece one together here? > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 3 February 2018 9:58 AM, gangadhar panday via NCPH-Intersessional2018 < > ncph-intersessional2018 at icann.org> wrote: > > I agree with Raoul's view. > > On Feb 2, 2018 11:13 PM, Raoul Plommer wrote: > > Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two > candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round > results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more > candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one > candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round. > Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the > NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own > stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH > councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying > to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better. > > Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure from > inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first round > can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. > > -Raoul > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Feb 5 08:20:10 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 01:20:10 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I agree with Ayden. As to adding an additional day to policy forum for outreach, we should support it (I checked, it's supported in GNSO Council public comment). But then GNSO council doc says that it should not only be limited to outreach and groups should be allowed to do whatever they desire. I warn you against this language. GNSO and PDPs staff can always organize PDPs and meetings that conflicts with outreach. Our best people want to attend these meeitngs and can't attend outreach. It even surprises me why this is up for debate. The Policy Forum was never meant to be just policy forum. It was policy and outreach forum but those who don't want outreach kept ignoring the outreach aspect. I care about outreach. It has not worked very well for us in terms of getting people interested in policy but I think we can work on it and do outreach and in-reach during that day, hopefully with the peace of mind that GNSO and PDPs won't have dozens of meetings we want to attend. **** I don't see a comment on location selection. Is it not for comment now? We need to comment on location selection criteria if that part is also included. NCSG cares about this. Although the paper says: {Q: Is there a preference from SO/AC leaders to adopt new criteria for the selection of ICANN Meeting locations based on factors such as gender issues, democratic principles, and strict rules in observance of religious holidays? The consensus among community leaders and representatives was that no new criteria for the selection of ICANN Meeting locations should be added.} I should say that not considering democratic values, gender issues etc for venue selection was not NCSG position and during the meeting I tried to cast the vote in line with NCSG position (however difficult). Some NCSG members believe that democratic values, gender issues etc should be considered for venue selection. You might want to add that to the public comment that If these criteria are not considered, ICANN should commit to providing a safe environment for the participants. Also ICANN should look at other organizations. For example refer to IETF Meeting Selection Criteria : https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12.html#rfc.section.3.1 I think IETF doc is quite appropriate. Maybe we ask them to convene a group to discuss meeting location? Do they normally seek community input on meeting location so that it does not come as a surprise? Farzaneh On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I think the comment which the GNSO Council submitted on this topic > captures these arguments well, so I am not sure there is a need for the > NCSG to submit a separate one. However if we do submit one under separate > cover I would make it clear that frontloading all the important sessions > into day one or two of the meeting (because some stakeholders do not attend > the entire meeting) is problematic and an unwise scheduling decision, in my > humble opinion. > > - Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 30 January 2018 8:17 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > > Hi, > > I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_ > tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing > > Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for submission > or not? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > & Mexico > ) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > (Mauritius > > )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 6 03:04:18 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 20:04:18 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello All, I made some changes/additions to Arsene's public comment. I know we missed the deadline but if you agree with it and think it's ready then they might be able to consider it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_ tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing Farzaneh On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Hi, > > I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_ > tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing > > Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for submission > or not? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > & Mexico > ) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > (Mauritius > > )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Feb 6 09:27:43 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:27:43 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5189F9CC-C21D-479C-89B9-4FCAEAAFE5FA@gmail.com> Thank you all for your comments/suggested edit. I will leave it to Rafik to clean up and have it ready for submission. Regards, Arsene > On 6 Feb 2018, at 03:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hello All, > > I made some changes/additions to Arsene's public comment. I know we missed the deadline but if you agree with it and think it's ready then they might be able to consider it. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > Hi, > > I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing > > Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for submission or not? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ------------------------ > *Ars?ne Tungali * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international , > CEO, Smart Services Sarl , Mabingwa Forum > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius ) - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English ) and (French ) > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 6 11:45:05 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 04:45:05 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy In-Reply-To: <5189F9CC-C21D-479C-89B9-4FCAEAAFE5FA@gmail.com> References: <5189F9CC-C21D-479C-89B9-4FCAEAAFE5FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: I do not support the proposed changes to the community forum (i.e. cut the public forum); aside from that, I am okay with this comment being submitted. We should probably do this soon, as the staff report is likely in the process of being prepared... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 6 February 2018 8:27 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Thank you all for your comments/suggested edit. > I will leave it to Rafik to clean up and have it ready for submission. > > Regards, > Arsene > >> On 6 Feb 2018, at 03:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> I made some changes/additions to Arsene's public comment. I know we missed the deadline but if you agree with it and think it's ready then they might be able to consider it. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for submission or not? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> ------------------------ >>> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org/), >>> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/) >>> Tel: [+243 993810967](tel:+243%20993%20810%20967) >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> >>> [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com/) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >>> >>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Feb 6 13:09:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 20:09:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy In-Reply-To: References: <5189F9CC-C21D-479C-89B9-4FCAEAAFE5FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I accepted the edits and made some changes in the document for new parts. I removed the paragraphs under Community forum section since there was no really any recommendation related to a public forum and board meeting. a quick proof-read would be helpful. since we are past the deadline for few days, I will submit the comment by today 23:59UTC if there are no strong objections. the comment is basically supporting the proposed changes and the additional section about venue selection is a topic that was discussed previously in NCSG mailing list ( prior to Abu Dhabi meeting). please review the draft asap. I am going to reach the staff to inform that we will submit and get that included in the staff report. Best, Rafik 2018-02-06 18:45 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > I do not support the proposed changes to the community forum (i.e. cut the > public forum); aside from that, I am okay with this comment being > submitted. We should probably do this soon, as the staff report is likely > in the process of being prepared... > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 6 February 2018 8:27 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > > Thank you all for your comments/suggested edit. > I will leave it to Rafik to clean up and have it ready for submission. > > Regards, > Arsene > > On 6 Feb 2018, at 03:04, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hello All, > > I made some changes/additions to Arsene's public comment. I know we missed > the deadline but if you agree with it and think it's ready then they might > be able to consider it. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ > 8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04Cyzx >> Z8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for submission >> or not? >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> ------------------------ >> **Ars?ne Tungali* * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >> Forum * >> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> >> & Mexico >> ) >> - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger >> - ICANN's GNSO Council >> Member. AFRINIC Fellow >> (Mauritius >> >> )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - >> Internet Freedom. >> >> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English >> ) and (French >> ) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Feb 6 13:29:10 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:29:10 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy In-Reply-To: References: <5189F9CC-C21D-479C-89B9-4FCAEAAFE5FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: I support the submission of this comment. ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) 2018-02-06 13:09 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi all, > > I accepted the edits and made some changes in the document for new parts. > I removed the paragraphs under Community forum section since there was no > really any recommendation related to a public forum and board meeting. > > a quick proof-read would be helpful. since we are past the deadline for > few days, I will submit the comment by today 23:59UTC if there are no > strong objections. the comment is basically supporting the proposed changes > and the additional section about venue selection is a topic that was > discussed previously in NCSG mailing list ( prior to Abu Dhabi meeting). > > please review the draft asap. I am going to reach the staff to inform that > we will submit and get that included in the staff report. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-06 18:45 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> I do not support the proposed changes to the community forum (i.e. cut >> the public forum); aside from that, I am okay with this comment being >> submitted. We should probably do this soon, as the staff report is likely >> in the process of being prepared... >> >> Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 6 February 2018 8:27 AM, Ars?ne Tungali >> wrote: >> >> Thank you all for your comments/suggested edit. >> I will leave it to Rafik to clean up and have it ready for submission. >> >> Regards, >> Arsene >> >> On 6 Feb 2018, at 03:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> I made some changes/additions to Arsene's public comment. I know we >> missed the deadline but if you agree with it and think it's ready then they >> might be able to consider it. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdA >> vG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ars?ne Tungali >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04Cyzx >>> Z8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for >>> submission or not? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> ------------------------ >>> **Ars?ne Tungali* * >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>> *, >>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >>> Forum * >>> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>> >>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>> >>> & Mexico >>> ) >>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>> Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council >>> Member. AFRINIC >>> Fellow (Mauritius >>> >>> )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - >>> Internet Freedom. >>> >>> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English >>> ) and (French >>> ) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 6 13:41:26 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 20:41:26 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: - operating standards https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit - nomcom review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit the extension is for this Wednesday. Best, rafik 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > hi all, > > as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an > extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next > objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review > comments in the coming days. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi all, >> >> >> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >> >>> >>> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the >>> deadline is *the 2nd Feb*: https://docs.google.com/d >>> ocument/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>> >>> >>> >> please review the draft asap. >> >>> >>> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I >>> think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st >>> Feb* >>> >>> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. >> >>> >>> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the >>> deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for >>> clarification >>> >>> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. >> >>> >>> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide any >>> feedback >>> >>> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to make >> it a NCSG one https://docs.google.com/docume >> nt/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , >> please review asap >> >>> >>> - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/b >>> log/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-fee >>> dback-on-proposed-compliance-models >>> >>> , deadline is the *29th **Jan *. >>> >>> >>> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly >> here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 6 13:51:05 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 06:51:05 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy In-Reply-To: References: <5189F9CC-C21D-479C-89B9-4FCAEAAFE5FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55yO1yBdMy4DufXtw--rMLNAt-kZzNjvvzxa-X6BpU1U8xio-1oALvIA-QiUXo3ol1k3EZgfoueCel1qbwP2tlUfAzBAWtGKYr3XykDgFZA=@ferdeline.com> I have reviewed the comment and put forward some suggested edits which I believe are consistent with the NCSG's past statements on this issue. Thanks! Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 6 February 2018 12:29 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > I support the submission of this comment. > > ------------------------ > *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* > Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), > CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) > > 2018-02-06 13:09 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Hi all, >> >> I accepted the edits and made some changes in the document for new parts. I removed the paragraphs under Community forum section since there was no really any recommendation related to a public forum and board meeting. >> >> a quick proof-read would be helpful. since we are past the deadline for few days, I will submit the comment by today 23:59UTC if there are no strong objections. the comment is basically supporting the proposed changes and the additional section about venue selection is a topic that was discussed previously in NCSG mailing list ( prior to Abu Dhabi meeting). >> >> please review the draft asap. I am going to reach the staff to inform that we will submit and get that included in the staff report. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-06 18:45 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> I do not support the proposed changes to the community forum (i.e. cut the public forum); aside from that, I am okay with this comment being submitted. We should probably do this soon, as the staff report is likely in the process of being prepared... >>> Ayden >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 6 February 2018 8:27 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you all for your comments/suggested edit. >>>> I will leave it to Rafik to clean up and have it ready for submission. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Arsene >>>> >>>>> On 6 Feb 2018, at 03:04, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> I made some changes/additions to Arsene's public comment. I know we missed the deadline but if you agree with it and think it's ready then they might be able to consider it. >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for submission or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Arsene >>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org/), >>>>>> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/) >>>>>> Tel: [+243 993810967](tel:+243%20993%20810%20967) >>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>>> [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com/) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >>>>>> >>>>>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 Wed Feb 7 19:58:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:58:37 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik. Do you know if there is support from our subject matter experts to submit these comments? I think that would be Farzaneh for the NomCom one, not sure who to turn to for the Operating Standards one. ? Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 6 February 2018 12:41 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: > - operating standards https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit > - nomcom review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit > > the extension is for this Wednesday. > > Best, > > rafik > > 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> hi all, >> >> as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review comments in the coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >>> >>>> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the deadline is the 2nd Feb: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>> >>> please review the draft asap. >>> >>>> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is 1st Feb >>> >>> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. >>> >>>> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the deadline of 31st Jan to submit any question or ask for clarification >>> >>> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. >>> >>>> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline 2nd Feb to provide any feedback >>> >>> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to make it a NCSG one https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , please review asap >>> >>>> - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models , deadline is the 29th Jan . >>> >>> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 8 07:54:57 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:54:57 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to Farzaneh for making some edits to the NomCom comment. I have also dug through the report and made some lengthy revisions to the comment. If you read it a few days ago I suggest a re-read, as it is now unrecognisable, it has changed that much. I think it's in a suitable state for submission now, though your thoughts/comments are warmly welcomed! - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 6 February 2018 12:41 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: > - operating standards https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit > - nomcom review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit > > the extension is for this Wednesday. > > Best, > > rafik > > 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> hi all, >> >> as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review comments in the coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >>> >>>> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the deadline is the 2nd Feb: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>> >>> please review the draft asap. >>> >>>> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is 1st Feb >>> >>> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. >>> >>>> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the deadline of 31st Jan to submit any question or ask for clarification >>> >>> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. >>> >>>> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline 2nd Feb to provide any feedback >>> >>> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to make it a NCSG one https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , please review asap >>> >>>> - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models , deadline is the 29th Jan . >>> >>> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 08:23:47 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:23:47 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Farzaneh for the additions and Ayden for the suggestions and edits. As a former nomcom rep, I am fine with the content (not necessarily supporting the extension of term limits but it is not a big deal). I think the comment is in a good shape. Liz kindly gave me the edit permission and I could tidy-up the document and accept the revision. I hoped that other PC members participate more actively in the review since we got the opportunity with the extension. So I am asking PC members to share comments and thoughts, if there are no objections, I would like to submit the comment tomorrow. we still have the operating standards under review https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit . with all SSR2 RT issue, we got to submit a comment. Best, Rafik 2018-02-08 14:54 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Thanks to Farzaneh for making some edits to the NomCom comment. I have > also dug through the report and made some lengthy revisions to the comment. > If you read it a few days ago I suggest a re-read, as it is now > unrecognisable, it has changed that much. I think it's in a suitable state > for submission now, though your thoughts/comments are warmly welcomed! > > - Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 6 February 2018 12:41 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: > - operating standards https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit > - nomcom review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit > > the extension is for this Wednesday. > > Best, > > rafik > > 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> hi all, >> >> as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an >> extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next >> objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review >> comments in the coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >>> >>>> >>>> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the >>>> deadline is *the 2nd Feb*: https://docs.google.com/d >>>> ocument/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> please review the draft asap. >>> >>>> >>>> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I >>>> think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st >>>> Feb* >>>> >>>> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. >>> >>>> >>>> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the >>>> deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for >>>> clarification >>>> >>>> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. >>> >>>> >>>> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide >>>> any feedback >>>> >>>> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to make >>> it a NCSG one https://docs.google.com/docume >>> nt/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , >>> please review asap >>> >>>> >>>> - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/b >>>> log/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-fee >>>> dback-on-proposed-compliance-models >>>> >>>> , deadline is the *29th **Jan *. >>>> >>>> >>>> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly >>> here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farellfolly at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 10:31:12 2018 From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:31:12 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, I am sorry for giving no news since.. I Have been very busy these last two weeks. As we got an extension I will go and review the documents. Le jeu. 8 f?vr. 2018 ? 07:24, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > Thanks Farzaneh for the additions and Ayden for the suggestions and edits. > As a former nomcom rep, I am fine with the content (not > necessarily supporting the extension of term limits but it is not a big > deal). I think the comment is in a good shape. Liz kindly gave me the edit > permission and I could tidy-up the document and accept the revision. > > I hoped that other PC members participate more actively in the review > since we got the opportunity with the extension. So I am asking PC members > to share comments and thoughts, if there are no objections, I would like to > submit the comment tomorrow. > > we still have the operating standards under review > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit > . with all SSR2 RT issue, we got to submit a comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-08 14:54 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Thanks to Farzaneh for making some edits to the NomCom comment. I have >> also dug through the report and made some lengthy revisions to the comment. >> If you read it a few days ago I suggest a re-read, as it is now >> unrecognisable, it has changed that much. I think it's in a suitable state >> for submission now, though your thoughts/comments are warmly welcomed! >> >> - Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 6 February 2018 12:41 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: >> - operating standards >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >> - nomcom review: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit >> >> the extension is for this Wednesday. >> >> Best, >> >> rafik >> >> 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >> hi all, >>> >>> as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an >>> extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next >>> objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review >>> comments in the coming days. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >>>> >>> >>>>> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the >>>>> deadline is *the 2nd Feb*: >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>>>> >>>>> >>>> please review the draft asap. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and >>>>> I think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st >>>>> Feb* >>>>> >>>>> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the >>>>> deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for >>>>> clarification >>>>> >>>>> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide >>>>> any feedback >>>>> >>>>> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to >>>> make it a NCSG one >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing >>>> , please review asap >>>> >>> >>>>> - GDPR compliance models : >>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models >>>>> , deadline is the *29th **Jan *. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly >>>> here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >>>> >>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Regards @__f_f__ https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 8 14:26:57 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:26:57 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget Message-ID: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> 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! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 19:13:31 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 14:13:31 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I support the draft in general, but there some conclusions I cannot arrive from what I know, and therefore will not support. I would not say that icann is a generous employer, but I think is ok to ask to further understand rhe salary structure. We might even find out that a big oart of icann is contracted and not employed and not well paid. Same goes for the next gen and the fellowship, for me it is not an obvios statement we should cut them back without further information. It would be irresponsible to demand that and I know we are agreeing on that at Council level. In that sense I would be more careful in the way of expressing our concerns, but not our certainty, because if we wrong our certainty statement can do damage and even loose credibility over time. While if we wrote our concerns appropriately there is no downside and we might bring needed light to a topic. Best, Martin Cheers, Martin On 8 Feb 2018 4:27 am, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > 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/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C > 5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 8 19:38:22 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:38:22 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <6Qn7FvnVxPFUyDr7Vi5MvnVfRqwhFUWksjXXQ6iZp1isjSmfa_oPcrTOmdPsIJ5_3SnglmLYk0HtRMfFr55GtMLHFmrHY1qgf8HPawvRHMU=@ferdeline.com> Hi Martin, Thanks for reviewing the comment so promptly. A very quick response: I do not advocate for cutting the fellowship/NextGen programmes at a whim here, and I do not advocate for doing so "without further information." I think the current wording is very neutral and I stand by it: "We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes. We encourage ICANN to assess these programmes in terms of bringing active and productive contributors into ICANN?s policy development process working groups." I am open to changing this text if you can provide alternative wording but to be honest, I think it addresses your concerns here already. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 8 February 2018 6:13 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > I support the draft in general, but there some conclusions I cannot arrive from what I know, and therefore will not support. > > I would not say that icann is a generous employer, but I think is ok to ask to further understand rhe salary structure. We might even find out that a big oart of icann is contracted and not employed and not well paid. > > Same goes for the next gen and the fellowship, for me it is not an obvios statement we should cut them back without further information. It would be irresponsible to demand that and I know we are agreeing on that at Council level. > > In that sense I would be more careful in the way of expressing our concerns, but not our certainty, because if we wrong our certainty statement can do damage and even loose credibility over time. While if we wrote our concerns appropriately there is no downside and we might bring needed light to a topic. > > Best, > Martin > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 8 Feb 2018 4:27 am, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Thu Feb 8 21:14:19 2018 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 19:14:19 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: 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! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Thu Feb 8 21:26:40 2018 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 19:26:40 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: <6Qn7FvnVxPFUyDr7Vi5MvnVfRqwhFUWksjXXQ6iZp1isjSmfa_oPcrTOmdPsIJ5_3SnglmLYk0HtRMfFr55GtMLHFmrHY1qgf8HPawvRHMU=@ferdeline.com> References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> <6Qn7FvnVxPFUyDr7Vi5MvnVfRqwhFUWksjXXQ6iZp1isjSmfa_oPcrTOmdPsIJ5_3SnglmLYk0HtRMfFr55GtMLHFmrHY1qgf8HPawvRHMU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Yes, I found the wording of that section to be very moderate indeed. From: Ayden F?rdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com] Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 12:38 PM To: Martin Pablo Silva Valent Cc: ncsg-pc ; Mueller, Milton L ; crg at ISOC-CR.ORG; paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM; Corinne Cath Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget Hi Martin, Thanks for reviewing the comment so promptly. A very quick response: I do not advocate for cutting the fellowship/NextGen programmes at a whim here, and I do not advocate for doing so "without further information." I think the current wording is very neutral and I stand by it: "We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes. We encourage ICANN to assess these programmes in terms of bringing active and productive contributors into ICANN?s policy development process working groups." I am open to changing this text if you can provide alternative wording but to be honest, I think it addresses your concerns here already. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 8 February 2018 6:13 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent > wrote: I support the draft in general, but there some conclusions I cannot arrive from what I know, and therefore will not support. I would not say that icann is a generous employer, but I think is ok to ask to further understand rhe salary structure. We might even find out that a big oart of icann is contracted and not employed and not well paid. Same goes for the next gen and the fellowship, for me it is not an obvios statement we should cut them back without further information. It would be irresponsible to demand that and I know we are agreeing on that at Council level. In that sense I would be more careful in the way of expressing our concerns, but not our certainty, because if we wrong our certainty statement can do damage and even loose credibility over time. While if we wrote our concerns appropriately there is no downside and we might bring needed light to a topic. Best, Martin Cheers, Martin On 8 Feb 2018 4:27 am, "Ayden F?rdeline" > wrote: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 23:12:56 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:12:56 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Fair enough, as long as it gives room. To analysis and not preconceived conclusion I support it fully. And I agree with Milton on pointing out the outstanding work ayden is doing, I just hope my comments make it stronger and more effective. Thanks Ayden! Cheers, Martin On 8 Feb 2018 12:44, "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 < > milton at gatech.edu>; crg at ISOC-CR.ORG; paul.rosenzweig@ > 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/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C > 5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Thu Feb 8 23:14:02 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 22:14:02 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <4447c7cb-a22c-5fda-a755-ba4292dda01d@mpicc.de> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 8 23:21:39 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:21:39 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: <4447c7cb-a22c-5fda-a755-ba4292dda01d@mpicc.de> References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> <4447c7cb-a22c-5fda-a755-ba4292dda01d@mpicc.de> Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Thu Feb 8 23:22:31 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 22:22:31 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No objection from me. Thanks to Farzaneh and Ayden! Cheers, Tanya On 08/02/18 07:23, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Farzaneh for the additions and Ayden for the suggestions and > edits. As a former nomcom rep, I am fine with the content (not > necessarily?supporting the extension of term limits but it is not a > big deal). I think the comment is in a good shape. Liz kindly gave me > the edit permission and? I could tidy-up the document and accept the > revision. > > I hoped that other PC members participate more actively in the review > since we got the opportunity with the extension. So I am asking PC > members to share comments and thoughts, if there are no objections,?I > would like to submit the comment tomorrow. > > we still have the operating standards under > review?https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit > .?with all SSR2 RT issue, we got to submit a comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-08 14:54 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: > > Thanks to Farzaneh for making some edits to the NomCom comment. I > have also dug through the report and made some lengthy revisions > to the comment. If you read it a few days ago I suggest a re-read, > as it is now unrecognisable, it has changed that much. I think > it's in a suitable state for submission now, though your > thoughts/comments are warmly welcomed! > > - Ayden?? > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 6 February 2018 12:41 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: >> - operating >> standards?https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >> >> - nomcom >> review:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit >> >> >> the extension is for this Wednesday. >> >> Best, >> >> rafik >> >> 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> hi all, >> >> as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could >> get an extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next >> week. so our next objective will be to finalize the operating >> standards and nomcom?review comments in the coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >> >> * The draft for operating standards for >> specific?review, the deadline is *the 2nd >> Feb*:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >> >> >> >> please review the draft asap.? >> >> * The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not >> draft yet and I think we should draft our own >> response asap, the deadline is *1st Feb* >> >> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to >> volunteer.? >> >> * The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, >> we have the deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any >> question or ask for clarification >> >> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send >> by 30th Jan.? >> >> * Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd >> Feb* to provide any feedback >> >> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is >> intent to make it a NCSG one >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing >> >> , please review asap? >> >> * GDPR compliance models >> :?https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-compliance-models >> >> , deadline is the *29th **Jan *.? >> >> >> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to >> act quickly here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 8 23:22:33 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:22:33 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks Martin, that's very kind of you to say, and thanks for the feedback. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 8 February 2018 10:12 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Fair enough, as long as it gives room. To analysis and not preconceived conclusion I support it fully. > > And I agree with Milton on pointing out the outstanding work ayden is doing, I just hope my comments make it stronger and more effective. Thanks Ayden! > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 8 Feb 2018 12:44, "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 ; 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 8 23:27:14 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:27:14 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks for these constructive edits, Milton. I'll accept the suggested edits on the Google Doc momentarily, and I'll remove the paragraph about the Intersessional. It might be better to be silent here, as I don't think this year's Intersessional was the most productive one yet... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 8 February 2018 8:14 PM, 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 ; 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! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Fri Feb 9 04:35:58 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:35:58 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Idem Tatiana Martin On 8 Feb 2018 13:22, "Dr. Tatiana Tropina" wrote: > No objection from me. > > Thanks to Farzaneh and Ayden! > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > On 08/02/18 07:23, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks Farzaneh for the additions and Ayden for the suggestions and edits. > As a former nomcom rep, I am fine with the content (not > necessarily supporting the extension of term limits but it is not a big > deal). I think the comment is in a good shape. Liz kindly gave me the edit > permission and I could tidy-up the document and accept the revision. > > I hoped that other PC members participate more actively in the review > since we got the opportunity with the extension. So I am asking PC members > to share comments and thoughts, if there are no objections, I would like to > submit the comment tomorrow. > > we still have the operating standards under review https://docs.google. > com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit . with > all SSR2 RT issue, we got to submit a comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-08 14:54 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Thanks to Farzaneh for making some edits to the NomCom comment. I have >> also dug through the report and made some lengthy revisions to the comment. >> If you read it a few days ago I suggest a re-read, as it is now >> unrecognisable, it has changed that much. I think it's in a suitable state >> for submission now, though your thoughts/comments are warmly welcomed! >> >> - Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 6 February 2018 12:41 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: >> - operating standards https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hq >> gSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >> - nomcom review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cp >> DPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit >> >> the extension is for this Wednesday. >> >> Best, >> >> rafik >> >> 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an >>> extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next >>> objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review >>> comments in the coming days. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the >>>>> deadline is *the 2nd Feb*: https://docs.google.com/d >>>>> ocument/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> please review the draft asap. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and >>>>> I think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st >>>>> Feb* >>>>> >>>>> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the >>>>> deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for >>>>> clarification >>>>> >>>>> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide >>>>> any feedback >>>>> >>>>> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to >>>> make it a NCSG one https://docs.google.com/docume >>>> nt/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , >>>> please review asap >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/b >>>>> log/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-fee >>>>> dback-on-proposed-compliance-models >>>>> >>>>> , deadline is the *29th **Jan *. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly >>>> here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 9 06:07:16 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:07:16 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks everyone, with no objection I will submit the nomcom review comment. Best, Rafik 2018-02-09 11:35 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>: > Idem Tatiana > > Martin > > On 8 Feb 2018 13:22, "Dr. Tatiana Tropina" wrote: > >> No objection from me. >> >> Thanks to Farzaneh and Ayden! >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tanya >> >> On 08/02/18 07:23, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Farzaneh for the additions and Ayden for the suggestions and >> edits. As a former nomcom rep, I am fine with the content (not >> necessarily supporting the extension of term limits but it is not a big >> deal). I think the comment is in a good shape. Liz kindly gave me the edit >> permission and I could tidy-up the document and accept the revision. >> >> I hoped that other PC members participate more actively in the review >> since we got the opportunity with the extension. So I am asking PC members >> to share comments and thoughts, if there are no objections, I would like to >> submit the comment tomorrow. >> >> we still have the operating standards under review >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSD >> w9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit . with all SSR2 RT issue, we got to >> submit a comment. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-08 14:54 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> Thanks to Farzaneh for making some edits to the NomCom comment. I have >>> also dug through the report and made some lengthy revisions to the comment. >>> If you read it a few days ago I suggest a re-read, as it is now >>> unrecognisable, it has changed that much. I think it's in a suitable state >>> for submission now, though your thoughts/comments are warmly welcomed! >>> >>> - Ayden >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 6 February 2018 12:41 PM, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: >>> - operating standards https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hq >>> gSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>> - nomcom review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cp >>> DPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit >>> >>> the extension is for this Wednesday. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> rafik >>> >>> 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an >>>> extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next >>>> objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review >>>> comments in the coming days. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the >>>>>> deadline is *the 2nd Feb*: https://docs.google.com/d >>>>>> ocument/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> please review the draft asap. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and >>>>>> I think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st >>>>>> Feb* >>>>>> >>>>>> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the >>>>>> deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for >>>>>> clarification >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide >>>>>> any feedback >>>>>> >>>>>> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to >>>>> make it a NCSG one https://docs.google.com/docume >>>>> nt/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , >>>>> please review asap >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/b >>>>>> log/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-fee >>>>>> dback-on-proposed-compliance-models >>>>>> >>>>>> , deadline is the *29th **Jan *. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly >>>>> here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 9 09:07:02 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:07:02 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> <4447c7cb-a22c-5fda-a755-ba4292dda01d@mpicc.de> Message-ID: 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/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C > 5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Fri Feb 9 09:37:02 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:37:02 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Ayden, I must say am happy with the new revisions, much appreciated and I fully concur. Kind Regards Poncelet On 8 February 2018 at 06:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks to Farzaneh for making some edits to the NomCom comment. I have > also dug through the report and made some lengthy revisions to the comment. > If you read it a few days ago I suggest a re-read, as it is now > unrecognisable, it has changed that much. I think it's in a suitable state > for submission now, though your thoughts/comments are warmly welcomed! > > - Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 6 February 2018 12:41 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > urgent reminder to review the draft comments on: > - operating standards https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit > - nomcom review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit > > the extension is for this Wednesday. > > Best, > > rafik > > 2018-02-02 8:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> hi all, >> >> as an update, I reached MSSI staff handling reviews and could get an >> extension for NCSG to submit our comments by next week. so our next >> objective will be to finalize the operating standards and nomcom review >> comments in the coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2018-01-28 15:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> some updates and actions to be taken quickly: >>> >>>> >>>> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the >>>> deadline is *the 2nd Feb*: https://docs.google.com/d >>>> ocument/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> please review the draft asap. >>> >>>> >>>> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I >>>> think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st >>>> Feb* >>>> >>>> we still need a draft for this one, anyone wants to volunteer. >>> >>>> >>>> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the >>>> deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for >>>> clarification >>>> >>>> Ayden volunteered to collect questions that we will send by 30th Jan. >>> >>>> >>>> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide >>>> any feedback >>>> >>>> there is a new draft submitted and I understand there is intent to make >>> it a NCSG one https://docs.google.com/docume >>> nt/d/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4WpMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , >>> please review asap >>> >>>> >>>> - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/b >>>> log/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-fee >>>> dback-on-proposed-compliance-models >>>> >>>> , deadline is the *29th **Jan *. >>>> >>>> >>>> we got Milton's draft and Stephanie comments, we need to act quickly >>> here since the deadline is the 29th Jan. >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Feb 9 10:57:08 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 03:57:08 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> <4447c7cb-a22c-5fda-a755-ba4292dda01d@mpicc.de> Message-ID: <9uHpjXNbpNzN7lqJsFfrD7fkMRakIFRaxO-LQK_w9iesX0EHlKpGQx5Nf0BWsOUbIl7CXc6ADsP9YibhAl2EPRlm6Tvyg35zzYY7A2wJ1ko=@ferdeline.com> 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](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 Fri Feb 9 11:17:20 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 11:17:20 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> <4447c7cb-a22c-5fda-a755-ba4292dda01d@mpicc.de> Message-ID: Good job Ayden and everyone for such a well done job. I think so far, all looks good to me, the comment reads well and captures many aspects that we care for. I will use suggest mode when i have edits to suggest. I have the impression that our public comments are more and more of good learning materials that we should widely share with our members. Not everyone is able to understand the issues (especially for those not ?yet? directly involved in pdps) but public comments can give to them an opportunity to understand them throug a public comment and know what we stand for. I therefore would encourage our PC Chair and SG/C chairs to find a way for our (submitted) public comments to be regularly shared with the community. Thanks, Arsene ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:07 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Feb 9 14:03:30 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:03:30 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> <4447c7cb-a22c-5fda-a755-ba4292dda01d@mpicc.de> Message-ID: Thank you for the comments, Ars?ne. I have a feeling that the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget might still be incomplete, so would welcome suggestions from others - particularly those tracking closely the various working groups - if they feel like there are line items missing in the budget itself related to, say, implementation work or education campaigns. I don't track all the various working groups, subtracks, and work stream 2 activities closely enough to be able to make that assessment so am relying on you to inform me if something is missing please. I am also wondering about earmarked capital like the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Fund and the Reserve Fund and how their investments are being managed (however this is far from my area of expertise, so I cannot say if their returns are excellent/average/terrible). Please feel free to edit the document to expand on this or other points if you have the knowledge, advice, analysis... thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 9 February 2018 10:17 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Good job Ayden and everyone for such a well done job. I think so far, all looks good to me, the comment reads well and captures many aspects that we care for. I will use suggest mode when i have edits to suggest. > > I have the impression that our public comments are more and more of good learning materials that we should widely share with our members. Not everyone is able to understand the issues (especially for those not ?yet? directly involved in pdps) but public comments can give to them an opportunity to understand them throug a public comment and know what we stand for. > > I therefore would encourage our PC Chair and SG/C chairs to find a way for our (submitted) public comments to be regularly shared with the community. > > Thanks, > Arsene > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:07 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](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 Sun Feb 11 20:14:23 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:14:23 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to strongly protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities should not disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am wrong here... ?Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find where CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. > > On the [ICANN website](https://community.icann.org/display/soaceoutreach), CROP is described as being a core activity: "Following another successful implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the ?pilot? program label has been removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy Development Support budget as part of the core activities to be coordinated by that staff in collaboration with the GSE team." > > Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; could someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 Budget? Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Feb 12 00:00:14 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:00:14 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a real problem, and especially to do it in the dead of night without notice to the Community. Ayden: /would it be possible to ask ICANN Staff to give us a table of what's "in" and "out" from last year's budget? /It seems very fair in the interest of transparency. Also, I am sorry to see funding for ICANNWiki go down considerably (or was it eliminated completely)? I use ICANN Wiki all the time to try to remember someone, learn about someone and see what they've worked on in ICANN. ICANNWiki staff has told me they want to continue and finding funding, but they need some time to transition off ICANN funding. That seems very fair. Best and tx to Ayden, Kathy On 2/11/2018 1:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing > Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply > mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to > strongly protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities > should not disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am > wrong here... > > ?Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find >> where CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. >> >> On the ICANN website >> , CROP is >> described as being a core activity: "Following another successful >> implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the ?pilot? program label has >> been removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy >> Development Support budget as part of the core activities to be >> coordinated by that staff in collaboration with the GSE team." >> >> Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; >> could someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 >> Budget? Thank you. >> >> 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 farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 02:34:25 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:34:25 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal Message-ID: We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based on our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose to the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. We want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. The procedure is attached. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Board-Seat-NCSG-Proposal.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 13384 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon Feb 12 11:05:58 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:05:58 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh, Am totally fine with the procedure attached to be adopted. Kind Regards Poncelert On 12 February 2018 at 01:34, farzaneh badii wrote: > We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based on > our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose to > the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. We > want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let > me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we > have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the > drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. > > The procedure is attached. > > > > > > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plommer at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 13:22:05 2018 From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:22:05 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even commented on my earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer. Questions on your proposal: 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier? 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning? 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and interviewers will be from both SGs? NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus > candidate to run for the election. > 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only candidate and then it would not make sense to have elections anymore. I think you meant that both SGs decide on their best candidate but what would then be the consensus candidate of the NCA? I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be relatively hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it doesn't happen, the whole thing is restarted god knows how many times. For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal: *Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round.* *Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better.* *Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. * -Raoul On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based on > our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose to > the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. We > want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let > me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we > have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the > drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. > > The procedure is attached. > > > > > > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 12 20:02:09 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:02:09 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I chaired the GNSO's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations call today and asked both Xavier and Becky about what happened to CROP. As chair the expectation is that I be neutral, and we had no other NCSG representatives on the call, so I could not push the importance of CROP as much I had hoped. If anything I think the criticism could be made, and I would accept it, that I was insufficiently neutral as chair in pushing for an answer here. There was certainly not widespread support for the continuation of CROP among the call participants, particularly from the contracted parties, who - and this was just my impression, perhaps I misunderstood them - seemed to me to be suggesting that it was sensible for ICANN to have cut back CROP. They see it as a "nice to have" rather than an "essential" piece of the budget. Staff comments made in the Adobe Connect room as "personal observations" wondered whether we would like CROP or support dedicated to internal capacity building, suggesting we could only have one and not both. So I do not have much more clarity just yet as to what has happened to CROP; the Finance department is checking to see if it was folded into a different budget, has been renamed, or was indeed cancelled (it seems there has been a lot of internal discussions in relation to CROP that the community was not privy to), but if it's gone, we really need to fight to save it. We are going to need to mobilise members in support of it... After all, if CROP can just mysteriously disappear from the Budget with no announcement or community consultation, what might go next? Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 11 February 2018 11:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > This is a real problem, and especially to do it in the dead of night without notice to the Community. > > Ayden: would it be possible to ask ICANN Staff to give us a table of what's "in" and "out" from last year's budget? It seems very fair in the interest of transparency. > > Also, I am sorry to see funding for ICANNWiki go down considerably (or was it eliminated completely)? I use ICANN Wiki all the time to try to remember someone, learn about someone and see what they've worked on in ICANN. ICANNWiki staff has told me they want to continue and finding funding, but they need some time to transition off ICANN funding. That seems very fair. > > Best and tx to Ayden, Kathy > > On 2/11/2018 1:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to strongly protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities should not disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am wrong here... >> >> ?Ayden >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline [](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com) wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find where CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. >>> >>> On the [ICANN website](https://community.icann.org/display/soaceoutreach), CROP is described as being a core activity: "Following another successful implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the ?pilot? program label has been removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy Development Support budget as part of the core activities to be coordinated by that staff in collaboration with the GSE team." >>> >>> Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; could someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 Budget? Thank you. >>> >>> 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 pileleji at ymca.gm Mon Feb 12 20:44:45 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:44:45 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ayden, Thanks for taken your time to explain the deliberations you had today. Definitely a hard task when as Chair neutrality is required, so kudos to your efforts in raising the issue, even though a lot of clarity is still required moving on. My suggestion lets give Xavier and is team some time to make clarity on CROP, I don't want to assume yet, though communication was definitely negligent on this issue. However lets wait and react proper when Xavier and team gets back to us. Kind Regards Poncelet On 12 February 2018 at 19:02, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I chaired the GNSO's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations > call today and asked both Xavier and Becky about what happened to CROP. As > chair the expectation is that I be neutral, and we had no other NCSG > representatives on the call, so I could not push the importance of CROP as > much I had hoped. If anything I think the criticism could be made, and I > would accept it, that I was insufficiently neutral as chair in pushing for > an answer here. > > There was certainly not widespread support for the continuation of CROP > among the call participants, particularly from the contracted parties, who > - and this was just my impression, perhaps I misunderstood them - seemed to > me to be suggesting that it was sensible for ICANN to have cut back CROP. > They see it as a "nice to have" rather than an "essential" piece of the > budget. Staff comments made in the Adobe Connect room as "personal > observations" wondered whether we would like CROP or support dedicated to > internal capacity building, suggesting we could only have one and not both. > > So I do not have much more clarity just yet as to what has happened to > CROP; the Finance department is checking to see if it was folded into a > different budget, has been renamed, or was indeed cancelled (it seems there > has been a lot of internal discussions in relation to CROP that the > community was not privy to), but if it's gone, we really need to fight to > save it. We are going to need to mobilise members in support of it... > > After all, if CROP can just mysteriously disappear from the Budget with no > announcement or community consultation, what might go next? > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 11 February 2018 11:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > This is a real problem, and especially to do it in the dead of night > without notice to the Community. > > Ayden: *would it be possible to ask ICANN Staff to give us a table of > what's "in" and "out" from last year's budget? *It seems very fair in the > interest of transparency. > > Also, I am sorry to see funding for ICANNWiki go down considerably (or was > it eliminated completely)? I use ICANN Wiki all the time to try to remember > someone, learn about someone and see what they've worked on in ICANN. > ICANNWiki staff has told me they want to continue and finding funding, but > they need some time to transition off ICANN funding. That seems very fair. > > Best and tx to Ayden, Kathy > > On 2/11/2018 1:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing > Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply > mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to strongly > protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities should not > disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am wrong here... > > ?Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > > Hi, > > I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find where > CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. > > On the ICANN website , > CROP is described as being a core activity: "Following another successful > implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the ?pilot? program label has been > removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy Development Support > budget as part of the core activities to be coordinated by that staff in > collaboration with the GSE team." > > Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; could > someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 Budget? Thank > you. > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 21:19:48 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:19:48 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do remember back in Copenhagen that it was mentioned by staff that crop was coming to an end as a pilot program, because it wasn't working like ot was expected. I can't recall the specific arguemtno given back then. At council level we won't get cph support if they don't feel generous to do so, but we can push in ncsg level for sure (even in ncph). Cheers, Martin On 12 Feb 2018 10:45, "Poncelet Ileleji" wrote: > Dear Ayden, > > Thanks for taken your time to explain the deliberations you had today. > Definitely a hard task when as Chair neutrality is required, so kudos to > your efforts in raising the issue, even though a lot of clarity is still > required moving on. > > My suggestion lets give Xavier and is team some time to make clarity on > CROP, I don't want to assume yet, though communication was definitely > negligent on this issue. However lets wait and react proper when Xavier > and team gets back to us. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > > > On 12 February 2018 at 19:02, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I chaired the GNSO's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations >> call today and asked both Xavier and Becky about what happened to CROP. As >> chair the expectation is that I be neutral, and we had no other NCSG >> representatives on the call, so I could not push the importance of CROP as >> much I had hoped. If anything I think the criticism could be made, and I >> would accept it, that I was insufficiently neutral as chair in pushing for >> an answer here. >> >> There was certainly not widespread support for the continuation of CROP >> among the call participants, particularly from the contracted parties, who >> - and this was just my impression, perhaps I misunderstood them - seemed to >> me to be suggesting that it was sensible for ICANN to have cut back CROP. >> They see it as a "nice to have" rather than an "essential" piece of the >> budget. Staff comments made in the Adobe Connect room as "personal >> observations" wondered whether we would like CROP or support dedicated to >> internal capacity building, suggesting we could only have one and not both. >> >> So I do not have much more clarity just yet as to what has happened to >> CROP; the Finance department is checking to see if it was folded into a >> different budget, has been renamed, or was indeed cancelled (it seems there >> has been a lot of internal discussions in relation to CROP that the >> community was not privy to), but if it's gone, we really need to fight to >> save it. We are going to need to mobilise members in support of it... >> >> After all, if CROP can just mysteriously disappear from the Budget with >> no announcement or community consultation, what might go next? >> >> Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 11 February 2018 11:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> wrote: >> >> This is a real problem, and especially to do it in the dead of night >> without notice to the Community. >> >> Ayden: *would it be possible to ask ICANN Staff to give us a table of >> what's "in" and "out" from last year's budget? *It seems very fair in >> the interest of transparency. >> >> Also, I am sorry to see funding for ICANNWiki go down considerably (or >> was it eliminated completely)? I use ICANN Wiki all the time to try to >> remember someone, learn about someone and see what they've worked on in >> ICANN. ICANNWiki staff has told me they want to continue and finding >> funding, but they need some time to transition off ICANN funding. That >> seems very fair. >> >> Best and tx to Ayden, Kathy >> >> On 2/11/2018 1:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing >> Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply >> mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to strongly >> protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities should not >> disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am wrong here... >> >> ?Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find where >> CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. >> >> On the ICANN website , >> CROP is described as being a core activity: "Following another successful >> implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the ?pilot? program label has been >> removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy Development Support >> budget as part of the core activities to be coordinated by that staff in >> collaboration with the GSE team." >> >> Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; >> could someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 Budget? >> Thank you. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 12 21:28:18 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:28:18 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <767VcCeae_a46YghAm9binAWYG9zpiXrR22T_YIVuyBtYYMCpEBVyLxusy-qzTs9G4XniKQDLO7H5ivfPROP8eVp0JmqDOSMfprlvGC912c=@ferdeline.com> Thanks for the tip; I will check the transcripts from Copenhagen. However I thought that it was mentioned that CROP was ending as CROPP (pilot programme) and becoming a part of the core budget. And indeed that was the case for the fiscal year 2018; where it is a core activity. The removal of CROP harms both the NCPH and the ALAC. We must punch back... Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > I do remember back in Copenhagen that it was mentioned by staff that crop was coming to an end as a pilot program, because it wasn't working like ot was expected. I can't recall the specific arguemtno given back then. At council level we won't get cph support if they don't feel generous to do so, but we can push in ncsg level for sure (even in ncph). > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 12 Feb 2018 10:45, "Poncelet Ileleji" wrote: > >> Dear Ayden, >> Thanks for taken your time to explain the deliberations you had today. Definitely a hard task when as Chair neutrality is required, so kudos to your efforts in raising the issue, even though a lot of clarity is still required moving on. >> My suggestion lets give Xavier and is team some time to make clarity on CROP, I don't want to assume yet, though communication was definitely negligent on this issue. However lets wait and react proper when Xavier and team gets back to us. >> Kind Regards >> Poncelet >> >> On 12 February 2018 at 19:02, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> I chaired the GNSO's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations call today and asked both Xavier and Becky about what happened to CROP. As chair the expectation is that I be neutral, and we had no other NCSG representatives on the call, so I could not push the importance of CROP as much I had hoped. If anything I think the criticism could be made, and I would accept it, that I was insufficiently neutral as chair in pushing for an answer here. >>> >>> There was certainly not widespread support for the continuation of CROP among the call participants, particularly from the contracted parties, who - and this was just my impression, perhaps I misunderstood them - seemed to me to be suggesting that it was sensible for ICANN to have cut back CROP. They see it as a "nice to have" rather than an "essential" piece of the budget. Staff comments made in the Adobe Connect room as "personal observations" wondered whether we would like CROP or support dedicated to internal capacity building, suggesting we could only have one and not both. >>> >>> So I do not have much more clarity just yet as to what has happened to CROP; the Finance department is checking to see if it was folded into a different budget, has been renamed, or was indeed cancelled (it seems there has been a lot of internal discussions in relation to CROP that the community was not privy to), but if it's gone, we really need to fight to save it. We are going to need to mobilise members in support of it... >>> >>> After all, if CROP can just mysteriously disappear from the Budget with no announcement or community consultation, what might go next? >>> Ayden >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 11 February 2018 11:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> >>>> This is a real problem, and especially to do it in the dead of night without notice to the Community. >>>> >>>> Ayden: would it be possible to ask ICANN Staff to give us a table of what's "in" and "out" from last year's budget? It seems very fair in the interest of transparency. >>>> >>>> Also, I am sorry to see funding for ICANNWiki go down considerably (or was it eliminated completely)? I use ICANN Wiki all the time to try to remember someone, learn about someone and see what they've worked on in ICANN. ICANNWiki staff has told me they want to continue and finding funding, but they need some time to transition off ICANN funding. That seems very fair. >>>> >>>> Best and tx to Ayden, Kathy >>>> >>>> On 2/11/2018 1:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to strongly protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities should not disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am wrong here... >>>>> >>>>> ?Ayden >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline [](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find where CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the [ICANN website](https://community.icann.org/display/soaceoutreach), CROP is described as being a core activity: "Following another successful implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the "pilot" program label has been removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy Development Support budget as part of the core activities to be coordinated by that staff in collaboration with the GSE team." >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; could someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 Budget? Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________ >>>>> >>>>> _________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ >>>>> >>>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) >>> >>> ______________________________ _________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- >> >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> www.ymca.gm >> http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm) >> www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 21:54:24 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:54:24 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: <767VcCeae_a46YghAm9binAWYG9zpiXrR22T_YIVuyBtYYMCpEBVyLxusy-qzTs9G4XniKQDLO7H5ivfPROP8eVp0JmqDOSMfprlvGC912c=@ferdeline.com> References: <767VcCeae_a46YghAm9binAWYG9zpiXrR22T_YIVuyBtYYMCpEBVyLxusy-qzTs9G4XniKQDLO7H5ivfPROP8eVp0JmqDOSMfprlvGC912c=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I would like to clarify something here. CROP most definitely became a part of core budget to the extent that the decisions that were made on last year's ABR referred to as it being a part of the core budget. There was no discussion to remove it. Please look at the decisions on ABRs which I have attached and copy pasted one of the decisions below to the request for expansion of CROP: FY18-10- BC-Outreach Events BC Request for CROPP Program Travel Slot Expansion (Yes-Core)(0)(Benedetta Rossi) After four consecutive and successful calendar years in its pilot phase, the Community Regional Outreach Pilot Program (CROPP) has now become a core project provided to the community via the Policy Development Support department budget. For FY18, travel allocations for eligible GNSO constituencies will be increased to five regional travelers for the fiscal year to conduct outreach activities via traditional collaboration with ICANN's regional VPs. See FY18-65 for further information on the newly labeled ?CROP? Program. If something has become a part of the CORE BUDGET, its removal has to be done transparently with justification. If it has been removed from the core budget we must know about it. I don't think we need to speculate whether it was pilot or not pilot, We were informed that it became a part of the core budget, their responses to our ABRs last year are evidence to that. Best Farzaneh Farzaneh On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks for the tip; I will check the transcripts from Copenhagen. However > I thought that it was mentioned that CROP was ending as CROPP (pilot > programme) and becoming a part of the core budget. And indeed that was the > case for the fiscal year 2018; where it is a core activity. The removal of > CROP harms both the NCPH and the ALAC. We must punch back... > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > I do remember back in Copenhagen that it was mentioned by staff that crop > was coming to an end as a pilot program, because it wasn't working like ot > was expected. I can't recall the specific arguemtno given back then. At > council level we won't get cph support if they don't feel generous to do > so, but we can push in ncsg level for sure (even in ncph). > > > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 12 Feb 2018 10:45, "Poncelet Ileleji" wrote: > >> Dear Ayden, >> >> Thanks for taken your time to explain the deliberations you had today. >> Definitely a hard task when as Chair neutrality is required, so kudos to >> your efforts in raising the issue, even though a lot of clarity is still >> required moving on. >> >> My suggestion lets give Xavier and is team some time to make clarity on >> CROP, I don't want to assume yet, though communication was definitely >> negligent on this issue. However lets wait and react proper when Xavier >> and team gets back to us. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> >> >> On 12 February 2018 at 19:02, Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> I chaired the GNSO's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations >>> call today and asked both Xavier and Becky about what happened to CROP. As >>> chair the expectation is that I be neutral, and we had no other NCSG >>> representatives on the call, so I could not push the importance of CROP as >>> much I had hoped. If anything I think the criticism could be made, and I >>> would accept it, that I was insufficiently neutral as chair in pushing for >>> an answer here. >>> >>> There was certainly not widespread support for the continuation of CROP >>> among the call participants, particularly from the contracted parties, who >>> - and this was just my impression, perhaps I misunderstood them - seemed to >>> me to be suggesting that it was sensible for ICANN to have cut back CROP. >>> They see it as a "nice to have" rather than an "essential" piece of the >>> budget. Staff comments made in the Adobe Connect room as "personal >>> observations" wondered whether we would like CROP or support dedicated to >>> internal capacity building, suggesting we could only have one and not both. >>> >>> So I do not have much more clarity just yet as to what has happened to >>> CROP; the Finance department is checking to see if it was folded into a >>> different budget, has been renamed, or was indeed cancelled (it seems there >>> has been a lot of internal discussions in relation to CROP that the >>> community was not privy to), but if it's gone, we really need to fight to >>> save it. We are going to need to mobilise members in support of it... >>> >>> After all, if CROP can just mysteriously disappear from the Budget with >>> no announcement or community consultation, what might go next? >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 11 February 2018 11:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> wrote: >>> >>> This is a real problem, and especially to do it in the dead of night >>> without notice to the Community. >>> >>> Ayden: *would it be possible to ask ICANN Staff to give us a table of >>> what's "in" and "out" from last year's budget? *It seems very fair in >>> the interest of transparency. >>> >>> Also, I am sorry to see funding for ICANNWiki go down considerably (or >>> was it eliminated completely)? I use ICANN Wiki all the time to try to >>> remember someone, learn about someone and see what they've worked on in >>> ICANN. ICANNWiki staff has told me they want to continue and finding >>> funding, but they need some time to transition off ICANN funding. That >>> seems very fair. >>> >>> Best and tx to Ayden, Kathy >>> >>> On 2/11/2018 1:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing >>> Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply >>> mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to strongly >>> protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities should not >>> disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am wrong here... >>> >>> ?Ayden >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find where >>> CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. >>> >>> On the ICANN website , >>> CROP is described as being a core activity: "Following another successful >>> implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the "pilot" program label has been >>> removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy Development Support >>> budget as part of the core activities to be coordinated by that staff in >>> collaboration with the GSE team." >>> >>> Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; >>> could someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 Budget? >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________ _________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 <(220)%20437-0240> >> Fax:(220) 4390793 <(220)%20439-0793> >> Cell:(220) 9912508 <(220)%20991-2508> >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FY18 SO-AC Additional Budget Requests Explanations Adopted Final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 518006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 12 22:04:00 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:04:00 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: References: <767VcCeae_a46YghAm9binAWYG9zpiXrR22T_YIVuyBtYYMCpEBVyLxusy-qzTs9G4XniKQDLO7H5ivfPROP8eVp0JmqDOSMfprlvGC912c=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Farzaneh- This is exactly the issue. It was a core activity, referred to in ICANN?s annual report for 2017 as a highlighted "success", and has now disappeared in the middle of the night with no notice to us whatsoever. This is neither open, fair, nor transparent (read: ICANN?s core values). Why did ICANN highlight reductions to the fellowship programme in their webinar (and to travel support for the ALAC and GAC) but not this cut in support to the GNSO and the ALAC? It is not acceptable for this to happen in secret. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 20:54, farzaneh badii wrote: > I would like to clarify something here. > > CROP most definitely became a part of core budget to the extent that the decisions that were made on last year's ABR referred to as it being a part of the core budget. There was no discussion to remove it. Please look at the decisions on ABRs which I have attached and copy pasted one of the decisions below to the request for expansion of CROP: > > FY18-10- BC-Outreach Events BC Request for CROPP Program Travel Slot Expansion (Yes-Core)(0)(Benedetta Rossi) After four consecutive and successful calendar years in its pilot phase, the Community Regional Outreach Pilot Program (CROPP) has now become a core project provided to the community via the Policy Development Support department budget. For FY18, travel allocations for eligible GNSO constituencies will be increased to five regional travelers for the fiscal year to conduct outreach activities via traditional collaboration with ICANN's regional VPs. See FY18-65 for further information on the newly labeled "CROP" Program. > > If something has become a part of the CORE BUDGET, its removal has to be done transparently with justification. If it has been removed from the core budget we must know about it. I don't think we need to speculate whether it was pilot or not pilot, We were informed that it became a part of the core budget, their responses to our ABRs last year are evidence to that. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks for the tip; I will check the transcripts from Copenhagen. However I thought that it was mentioned that CROP was ending as CROPP (pilot programme) and becoming a part of the core budget. And indeed that was the case for the fiscal year 2018; where it is a core activity. The removal of CROP harms both the NCPH and the ALAC. We must punch back... >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> >>> I do remember back in Copenhagen that it was mentioned by staff that crop was coming to an end as a pilot program, because it wasn't working like ot was expected. I can't recall the specific arguemtno given back then. At council level we won't get cph support if they don't feel generous to do so, but we can push in ncsg level for sure (even in ncph). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martin >>> >>> On 12 Feb 2018 10:45, "Poncelet Ileleji" wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Ayden, >>>> Thanks for taken your time to explain the deliberations you had today. Definitely a hard task when as Chair neutrality is required, so kudos to your efforts in raising the issue, even though a lot of clarity is still required moving on. >>>> My suggestion lets give Xavier and is team some time to make clarity on CROP, I don't want to assume yet, though communication was definitely negligent on this issue. However lets wait and react proper when Xavier and team gets back to us. >>>> Kind Regards >>>> Poncelet >>>> >>>> On 12 February 2018 at 19:02, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> I chaired the GNSO's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations call today and asked both Xavier and Becky about what happened to CROP. As chair the expectation is that I be neutral, and we had no other NCSG representatives on the call, so I could not push the importance of CROP as much I had hoped. If anything I think the criticism could be made, and I would accept it, that I was insufficiently neutral as chair in pushing for an answer here. >>>>> >>>>> There was certainly not widespread support for the continuation of CROP among the call participants, particularly from the contracted parties, who - and this was just my impression, perhaps I misunderstood them - seemed to me to be suggesting that it was sensible for ICANN to have cut back CROP. They see it as a "nice to have" rather than an "essential" piece of the budget. Staff comments made in the Adobe Connect room as "personal observations" wondered whether we would like CROP or support dedicated to internal capacity building, suggesting we could only have one and not both. >>>>> >>>>> So I do not have much more clarity just yet as to what has happened to CROP; the Finance department is checking to see if it was folded into a different budget, has been renamed, or was indeed cancelled (it seems there has been a lot of internal discussions in relation to CROP that the community was not privy to), but if it's gone, we really need to fight to save it. We are going to need to mobilise members in support of it... >>>>> >>>>> After all, if CROP can just mysteriously disappear from the Budget with no announcement or community consultation, what might go next? >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> On 11 February 2018 11:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is a real problem, and especially to do it in the dead of night without notice to the Community. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden: would it be possible to ask ICANN Staff to give us a table of what's "in" and "out" from last year's budget? It seems very fair in the interest of transparency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I am sorry to see funding for ICANNWiki go down considerably (or was it eliminated completely)? I use ICANN Wiki all the time to try to remember someone, learn about someone and see what they've worked on in ICANN. ICANNWiki staff has told me they want to continue and finding funding, but they need some time to transition off ICANN funding. That seems very fair. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best and tx to Ayden, Kathy >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/11/2018 1:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to strongly protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities should not disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am wrong here... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>> On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline [](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find where CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the [ICANN website](https://community.icann.org/display/soaceoutreach), CROP is described as being a core activity: "Following another successful implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the "pilot" program label has been removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy Development Support budget as part of the core activities to be coordinated by that staff in collaboration with the GSE team." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; could someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 Budget? Thank you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ______________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________ _________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>>> Coordinator >>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>>> The Gambia, West Africa >>>> Tel: [(220) 4370240](tel:(220)%20437-0240) >>>> Fax:[(220) 4390793](tel:(220)%20439-0793) >>>> Cell:[(220) 9912508](tel:(220)%20991-2508) >>>> Skype: pons_utd >>>> www.ymca.gm >>>> http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>>> www.waigf.org >>>> [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm) >>>> www.npoc.org >>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>>> >>>> ______________________________ _________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 01:49:54 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:49:54 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple candidates if I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on past experience (3 elections and some of them reached deadlocks, Rafik can elaborate) having multiple candidates to vote on is not in the interest of NCSG. What worked well for NCSG and CSG in previous elections is to discuss until they come up with one consensus candidate to vote on. As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the last Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common practice in GNSO elections. Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA . 13 to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA plays a tie-breaker here]. Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election with one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in the past and it is needed for formality and procedural matter. If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the election, he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there certainly is a problem and it makes sense to re-start the process to solve that between the 2 groups. Best Farzaneh (this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's response below.) Farzaneh On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer wrote: > I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even commented on my > earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer. > > Questions on your proposal: > > 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier? > 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning? > 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and interviewers will > be from both SGs? > > NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus >> candidate to run for the election. >> > > 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only candidate > and then it would not make sense to have elections anymore. I think you > meant that both SGs decide on their best candidate but what would then be > the consensus candidate of the NCA? > > I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be relatively > hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it doesn't happen, the whole > thing is restarted god knows how many times. > > For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal: > > > > *Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two > candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round > results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more > candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one > candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round.* > > > *Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the > NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own > stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH > councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying > to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better.* > *Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure > from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first > round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. * > > -Raoul > > On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based on >> our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose to >> the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. We >> want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let >> me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we >> have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the >> drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. >> >> The procedure is attached. >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 13 03:55:52 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:55:52 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: <9uHpjXNbpNzN7lqJsFfrD7fkMRakIFRaxO-LQK_w9iesX0EHlKpGQx5Nf0BWsOUbIl7CXc6ADsP9YibhAl2EPRlm6Tvyg35zzYY7A2wJ1ko=@ferdeline.com> References: <4LLi00NsqqrwT0Ro52jwW2me6LJI0Nfofb6YisOXCV8c3DRjzg1TSwKD4SIwwXhEUNvWg6RJ4baOuvD_8JZ90oJZfLQXWai7rET0v0B3AAs=@ferdeline.com> <4447c7cb-a22c-5fda-a755-ba4292dda01d@mpicc.de> <9uHpjXNbpNzN7lqJsFfrD7fkMRakIFRaxO-LQK_w9iesX0EHlKpGQx5Nf0BWsOUbIl7CXc6ADsP9YibhAl2EPRlm6Tvyg35zzYY7A2wJ1ko=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I've revised the proposed NCSG comment again; this time to remark on the absence of CROP in the Budget (which, off-list, I have been advised has been discontinued) and to comment briefly on the spend on "professional services." I find it truly shocking that 73% of the Budget is proposed to be spent on staff and consultants (and not including other expenses that come with employing staff, like leasing office space and maintaining buildings, which comprises a further 7% of the Budget), and the only real cuts being made are to activities which support the community. It shows how much ICANN org values us... Edits made to paragraphs 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 20: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing I'm going to send this out to the NCSG-Discuss list now to elicit further discussion. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 9 February 2018 9:57 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > 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](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 Wed Feb 14 05:07:35 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:07:35 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Budget FAQ posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, we have the bad news. No CROP is budgeted for FY19. In my opinion we need to be careful with this resource for the remainder of FY18 to show that we use it responsibly, for a purpose, and have results. I believe that this will strengthen our case in our comment for its continuation. Because I think it should continue, and that we need to work to make this happen... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 14 February 2018 3:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > The Budget FAQ, which contains responses to the clarifying questions that the community asked, has now been published: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19-opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf > > Please note that this document confirms that the proposal is indeed for CROP to be discontinued in FY19. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 07:14:27 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:14:27 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Budget FAQ posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49BD7D30-09BD-441A-BBFC-E36B330D8718@gmail.com> This indeed is a bad news for CROP to be dropped from the budget. I agree that we need to do whatever we can to have it reconsidered. I am not sure what other actions can be taken apart from strongly making our case heard in our comment. Maybe if community members from other groups as well speak out about this? Can we work on rallying many voices to ours? If we get to convince the GNSO Council and add a discussion point in the next Council call, maybe we can make a statement? Is there any plan from within the SCBO, Ayden? ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Feb 14, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Well, we have the bad news. No CROP is budgeted for FY19. > > In my opinion we need to be careful with this resource for the remainder of FY18 to show that we use it responsibly, for a purpose, and have results. I believe that this will strengthen our case in our comment for its continuation. > > Because I think it should continue, and that we need to work to make this happen... > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- >> On 14 February 2018 3:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The Budget FAQ, which contains responses to the clarifying questions that the community asked, has now been published: >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19-opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf >> >> Please note that this document confirms that the proposal is indeed for CROP to be discontinued in FY19. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 14 07:23:55 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:23:55 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Budget FAQ posted In-Reply-To: <49BD7D30-09BD-441A-BBFC-E36B330D8718@gmail.com> References: <49BD7D30-09BD-441A-BBFC-E36B330D8718@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, we need to identify our allies and to build cross community support. The GNSO?s SCBO is unlikely to be taking this issue forward. We are more dependent on CROP than others are; many other constituencies in the CSG do not do outreach... and the registries and registrars said on the SCBO call that they don?t want to pay for it. However we might be able to partner with the ALAC here. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:14, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > This indeed is a bad news for CROP to be dropped from the budget. I agree that we need to do whatever we can to have it reconsidered. > > I am not sure what other actions can be taken apart from strongly making our case heard in our comment. Maybe if community members from other groups as well speak out about this? > > Can we work on rallying many voices to ours? If we get to convince the GNSO Council and add a discussion point in the next Council call, maybe we can make a statement? Is there any plan from within the SCBO, Ayden? > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Feb 14, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Well, we have the bad news. No CROP is budgeted for FY19. >> >> In my opinion we need to be careful with this resource for the remainder of FY18 to show that we use it responsibly, for a purpose, and have results. I believe that this will strengthen our case in our comment for its continuation. >> >> Because I think it should continue, and that we need to work to make this happen... >> >> Ayden >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 14 February 2018 3:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The Budget FAQ, which contains responses to the clarifying questions that the community asked, has now been published: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19-opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf >>> >>> Please note that this document confirms that the proposal is indeed for CROP to be discontinued in FY19. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 14 07:33:27 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:33:27 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Budget FAQ posted In-Reply-To: References: <49BD7D30-09BD-441A-BBFC-E36B330D8718@gmail.com> Message-ID: I should just note... I am chair of the SCBO so am rather constrained in what I can / can?t say on its mailing list. If other SCBO members would like to express support for CROP on its mailing list I think that would be useful in shaping our agenda for next week?s call. Who knows, we might even find support from the other side of the table if we have some good arguments... Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Yes, we need to identify our allies and to build cross community support. > > The GNSO?s SCBO is unlikely to be taking this issue forward. We are more dependent on CROP than others are; many other constituencies in the CSG do not do outreach... and the registries and registrars said on the SCBO call that they don?t want to pay for it. > > However we might be able to partner with the ALAC here. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:14, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> This indeed is a bad news for CROP to be dropped from the budget. I agree that we need to do whatever we can to have it reconsidered. >> >> I am not sure what other actions can be taken apart from strongly making our case heard in our comment. Maybe if community members from other groups as well speak out about this? >> >> Can we work on rallying many voices to ours? If we get to convince the GNSO Council and add a discussion point in the next Council call, maybe we can make a statement? Is there any plan from within the SCBO, Ayden? >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Feb 14, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Well, we have the bad news. No CROP is budgeted for FY19. >>> >>> In my opinion we need to be careful with this resource for the remainder of FY18 to show that we use it responsibly, for a purpose, and have results. I believe that this will strengthen our case in our comment for its continuation. >>> >>> Because I think it should continue, and that we need to work to make this happen... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 14 February 2018 3:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The Budget FAQ, which contains responses to the clarifying questions that the community asked, has now been published: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19-opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf >>>> >>>> Please note that this document confirms that the proposal is indeed for CROP to be discontinued in FY19. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 07:44:30 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 02:44:30 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Budget FAQ posted In-Reply-To: References: <49BD7D30-09BD-441A-BBFC-E36B330D8718@gmail.com> Message-ID: We should demand a full rational for that decision and as a community express our support and usefulness of that program, specially the benefit/cost that we have already raised. Maybe even explain what the cut will be mean for us as a way of explaining beyond doubt why are we so concerned. Cheers Martin On 13 Feb 2018 21:14, "Ars?ne Tungali" wrote: This indeed is a bad news for CROP to be dropped from the budget. I agree that we need to do whatever we can to have it reconsidered. I am not sure what other actions can be taken apart from strongly making our case heard in our comment. Maybe if community members from other groups as well speak out about this? Can we work on rallying many voices to ours? If we get to convince the GNSO Council and add a discussion point in the next Council call, maybe we can make a statement? Is there any plan from within the SCBO, Ayden? ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) On Feb 14, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Well, we have the bad news. No CROP is budgeted for FY19. In my opinion we need to be careful with this resource for the remainder of FY18 to show that we use it responsibly, for a purpose, and have results. I believe that this will strengthen our case in our comment for its continuation. Because I think it should continue, and that we need to work to make this happen... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 14 February 2018 3:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Dear all, The Budget FAQ, which contains responses to the clarifying questions that the community asked, has now been published: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19- opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf Please note that this document confirms that the proposal is indeed for CROP to be discontinued in FY19. Best wishes, Ayden _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 14 07:55:05 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:55:05 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Budget FAQ posted In-Reply-To: References: <49BD7D30-09BD-441A-BBFC-E36B330D8718@gmail.com> Message-ID: I can guess what the rationale is. "Given the stabilising budget there is a need to prioritise what work within ICANN?s mission gets done" would be how I imagine they?d respond... I don?t think we are going to get much detail than that unfortunately. So how do we counter this? Would love to hear some ideas on how we ?sell? CROP. My first attempt is in the proposed Budget comment but we might need something to wrap up for the SCBO and other fora. Thanks, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:44, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > We should demand a full rational for that decision and as a community express our support and usefulness of that program, specially the benefit/cost that we have already raised. Maybe even explain what the cut will be mean for us as a way of explaining beyond doubt why are we so concerned. > > Cheers > Martin > > On 13 Feb 2018 21:14, "Ars?ne Tungali" wrote: > >> This indeed is a bad news for CROP to be dropped from the budget. I agree that we need to do whatever we can to have it reconsidered. >> >> I am not sure what other actions can be taken apart from strongly making our case heard in our comment. Maybe if community members from other groups as well speak out about this? >> >> Can we work on rallying many voices to ours? If we get to convince the GNSO Council and add a discussion point in the next Council call, maybe we can make a statement? Is there any plan from within the SCBO, Ayden? >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Feb 14, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Well, we have the bad news. No CROP is budgeted for FY19. >>> >>> In my opinion we need to be careful with this resource for the remainder of FY18 to show that we use it responsibly, for a purpose, and have results. I believe that this will strengthen our case in our comment for its continuation. >>> >>> Because I think it should continue, and that we need to work to make this happen... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 14 February 2018 3:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The Budget FAQ, which contains responses to the clarifying questions that the community asked, has now been published: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19-opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf >>>> >>>> Please note that this document confirms that the proposal is indeed for CROP to be discontinued in FY19. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 07:57:49 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:57:49 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Budget FAQ posted In-Reply-To: References: <49BD7D30-09BD-441A-BBFC-E36B330D8718@gmail.com> Message-ID: How can we approach the ALAC on this? Maybe NCSG Chair to discuss with ALAC Chair and find out what are their thoughts and if we share the concern, then join hands. Good point about NCSG members on the SCBO to raise a conversation on its mailing list. I would love to see this also discussed on the Council call. Martin, i am afraid we can no longer ask any question nor clarification as this period is over. I may be wrong here though. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:44 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > > We should demand a full rational for that decision and as a community express our support and usefulness of that program, specially the benefit/cost that we have already raised. Maybe even explain what the cut will be mean for us as a way of explaining beyond doubt why are we so concerned. > > Cheers > Martin > > > > On 13 Feb 2018 21:14, "Ars?ne Tungali" wrote: > This indeed is a bad news for CROP to be dropped from the budget. I agree that we need to do whatever we can to have it reconsidered. > > I am not sure what other actions can be taken apart from strongly making our case heard in our comment. Maybe if community members from other groups as well speak out about this? > > Can we work on rallying many voices to ours? If we get to convince the GNSO Council and add a discussion point in the next Council call, maybe we can make a statement? Is there any plan from within the SCBO, Ayden? > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > >> On Feb 14, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Well, we have the bad news. No CROP is budgeted for FY19. >> >> In my opinion we need to be careful with this resource for the remainder of FY18 to show that we use it responsibly, for a purpose, and have results. I believe that this will strengthen our case in our comment for its continuation. >> >> Because I think it should continue, and that we need to work to make this happen... >> >> Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 14 February 2018 3:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The Budget FAQ, which contains responses to the clarifying questions that the community asked, has now been published: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19-opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf >>> >>> Please note that this document confirms that the proposal is indeed for CROP to be discontinued in FY19. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 08:01:20 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:01:20 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Budget FAQ posted In-Reply-To: References: <49BD7D30-09BD-441A-BBFC-E36B330D8718@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3D4355DD-66E8-42B3-BD76-72C26007965B@gmail.com> Can we start by documenting how we have used crop in the past and collect success stories? This can be a starting point to build a stong case ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I can guess what the rationale is. "Given the stabilising budget there is a need to prioritise what work within ICANN?s mission gets done" would be how I imagine they?d respond... I don?t think we are going to get much detail than that unfortunately. So how do we counter this? Would love to hear some ideas on how we ?sell? CROP. My first attempt is in the proposed Budget comment but we might need something to wrap up for the SCBO and other fora. > > Thanks, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:44, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> We should demand a full rational for that decision and as a community express our support and usefulness of that program, specially the benefit/cost that we have already raised. Maybe even explain what the cut will be mean for us as a way of explaining beyond doubt why are we so concerned. >> >> Cheers >> Martin >> >> >> >> On 13 Feb 2018 21:14, "Ars?ne Tungali" wrote: >> This indeed is a bad news for CROP to be dropped from the budget. I agree that we need to do whatever we can to have it reconsidered. >> >> I am not sure what other actions can be taken apart from strongly making our case heard in our comment. Maybe if community members from other groups as well speak out about this? >> >> Can we work on rallying many voices to ours? If we get to convince the GNSO Council and add a discussion point in the next Council call, maybe we can make a statement? Is there any plan from within the SCBO, Ayden? >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Feb 14, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Well, we have the bad news. No CROP is budgeted for FY19. >>> >>> In my opinion we need to be careful with this resource for the remainder of FY18 to show that we use it responsibly, for a purpose, and have results. I believe that this will strengthen our case in our comment for its continuation. >>> >>> Because I think it should continue, and that we need to work to make this happen... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 14 February 2018 3:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The Budget FAQ, which contains responses to the clarifying questions that the community asked, has now been published: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-fy19-opplan-budget-questions-responses-13feb18-en.pdf >>>> >>>> Please note that this document confirms that the proposal is indeed for CROP to be discontinued in FY19. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 08:23:57 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:23:57 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Where is CROP in the FY19 Budget? In-Reply-To: References: <767VcCeae_a46YghAm9binAWYG9zpiXrR22T_YIVuyBtYYMCpEBVyLxusy-qzTs9G4XniKQDLO7H5ivfPROP8eVp0JmqDOSMfprlvGC912c=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <5CB3432A-36FB-4E13-8868-5D2BBEAB530C@gmail.com> Only seen this conversation now, i was on the other thread. We need a strategy here on how to punch this back. (Also, i have the impression that GAC will still receive 40 travelers for fy19 as last year. No cut from them on this, from the clarifying questions responses. Am i right?) ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Feb 12, 2018, at 10:04 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks, Farzaneh- > > This is exactly the issue. It was a core activity, referred to in ICANN?s annual report for 2017 as a highlighted "success", and has now disappeared in the middle of the night with no notice to us whatsoever. This is neither open, fair, nor transparent (read: ICANN?s core values). Why did ICANN highlight reductions to the fellowship programme in their webinar (and to travel support for the ALAC and GAC) but not this cut in support to the GNSO and the ALAC? It is not acceptable for this to happen in secret. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 20:54, farzaneh badii wrote: >> I would like to clarify something here. >> >> CROP most definitely became a part of core budget to the extent that the decisions that were made on last year's ABR referred to as it being a part of the core budget. There was no discussion to remove it. Please look at the decisions on ABRs which I have attached and copy pasted one of the decisions below to the request for expansion of CROP: >> >> FY18-10- BC-Outreach Events BC Request for CROPP Program Travel Slot Expansion (Yes-Core)(0)(Benedetta Rossi) After four consecutive and successful calendar years in its pilot phase, the Community Regional Outreach Pilot Program (CROPP) has now become a core project provided to the community via the Policy Development Support department budget. For FY18, travel allocations for eligible GNSO constituencies will be increased to five regional travelers for the fiscal year to conduct outreach activities via traditional collaboration with ICANN's regional VPs. See FY18-65 for further information on the newly labeled "CROP" Program. >> >> If something has become a part of the CORE BUDGET, its removal has to be done transparently with justification. If it has been removed from the core budget we must know about it. I don't think we need to speculate whether it was pilot or not pilot, We were informed that it became a part of the core budget, their responses to our ABRs last year are evidence to that. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> Thanks for the tip; I will check the transcripts from Copenhagen. However I thought that it was mentioned that CROP was ending as CROPP (pilot programme) and becoming a part of the core budget. And indeed that was the case for the fiscal year 2018; where it is a core activity. The removal of CROP harms both the NCPH and the ALAC. We must punch back... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>> I do remember back in Copenhagen that it was mentioned by staff that crop was coming to an end as a pilot program, because it wasn't working like ot was expected. I can't recall the specific arguemtno given back then. At council level we won't get cph support if they don't feel generous to do so, but we can push in ncsg level for sure (even in ncph). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Martin >>>> >>>>> On 12 Feb 2018 10:45, "Poncelet Ileleji" wrote: >>>>> Dear Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for taken your time to explain the deliberations you had today. Definitely a hard task when as Chair neutrality is required, so kudos to your efforts in raising the issue, even though a lot of clarity is still required moving on. >>>>> >>>>> My suggestion lets give Xavier and is team some time to make clarity on CROP, I don't want to assume yet, though communication was definitely negligent on this issue. However lets wait and react proper when Xavier and team gets back to us. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards >>>>> >>>>> Poncelet >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 12 February 2018 at 19:02, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> I chaired the GNSO's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations call today and asked both Xavier and Becky about what happened to CROP. As chair the expectation is that I be neutral, and we had no other NCSG representatives on the call, so I could not push the importance of CROP as much I had hoped. If anything I think the criticism could be made, and I would accept it, that I was insufficiently neutral as chair in pushing for an answer here. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was certainly not widespread support for the continuation of CROP among the call participants, particularly from the contracted parties, who - and this was just my impression, perhaps I misunderstood them - seemed to me to be suggesting that it was sensible for ICANN to have cut back CROP. They see it as a "nice to have" rather than an "essential" piece of the budget. Staff comments made in the Adobe Connect room as "personal observations" wondered whether we would like CROP or support dedicated to internal capacity building, suggesting we could only have one and not both. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I do not have much more clarity just yet as to what has happened to CROP; the Finance department is checking to see if it was folded into a different budget, has been renamed, or was indeed cancelled (it seems there has been a lot of internal discussions in relation to CROP that the community was not privy to), but if it's gone, we really need to fight to save it. We are going to need to mobilise members in support of it... >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, if CROP can just mysteriously disappear from the Budget with no announcement or community consultation, what might go next? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> On 11 February 2018 11:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a real problem, and especially to do it in the dead of night without notice to the Community. >>>>>>> Ayden: would it be possible to ask ICANN Staff to give us a table of what's "in" and "out" from last year's budget? It seems very fair in the interest of transparency. >>>>>>> Also, I am sorry to see funding for ICANNWiki go down considerably (or was it eliminated completely)? I use ICANN Wiki all the time to try to remember someone, learn about someone and see what they've worked on in ICANN. ICANNWiki staff has told me they want to continue and finding funding, but they need some time to transition off ICANN funding. That seems very fair. >>>>>>> Best and tx to Ayden, Kathy >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/11/2018 1:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> I have sent the below email to the mailing list of the GNSO's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations. If true, and I hope I am simply mistaken, I will revise our (NCSG) comment on the FY19 Budget to strongly protest the removal of CROP from the budget. Core activities should not disappear without first being announced. I really hope I am wrong here... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>> On 11 February 2018 6:58 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was reviewing the FY19 Budget documents and cannot seem to find where CROP is. In the FY18 Budget, it was a part of project ID # 151188. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the ICANN website, CROP is described as being a core activity: "Following another successful implementation of the CROPP in FY17, the "pilot" program label has been removed and the activity has been moved to the Policy Development Support budget as part of the core activities to be coordinated by that staff in collaboration with the GSE team." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or it has a new project ID; could someone please let me know where I can find CROP in the FY19 Budget? Thank you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>>>> Coordinator >>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>>>> The Gambia, West Africa >>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>>>> Skype: pons_utd >>>>> www.ymca.gm >>>>> http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>>>> www.waigf.org >>>>> www,insistglobal.com >>>>> www.npoc.org >>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________ _________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>> >>> ______________________________ _________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Feb 15 18:53:11 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:53:11 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> these are not bad questions.? I think we should ask the Board if they have suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group.? Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform our members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability for our actions and expenditures.? $$$ may be going out the window with falling registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where ICANN did not support us for travel and admin.? And nobody would wave goodbye..... cheers SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 From: Heather Forrest To: Marika Konings CC: council at gnso.icann.org Hello everyone, I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three possibilities to seed the discussion: * SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it has 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? * Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? * The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning for the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work and the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? Best wishes, Heather On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings > wrote: Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to the ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you have any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as possible. Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The Board has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the GNSO Council: * *What are your key goals in 2018? *?The Board is interested in this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the community?s priorities. * *What are your most relevant longer-term goals?*??The Board is interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and ICANN org. Best regards, Marika */Marika Konings/* /Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / /Email: marika.konings at icann.org / // /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses ?and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . / _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Feb 16 02:03:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:03:37 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 15 February 2018 5:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > these are not bad questions. I think we should ask the Board if they have suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group. Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform our members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? > I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability for our actions and expenditures. $$$ may be going out the window with falling registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where ICANN did not support us for travel and admin. And nobody would wave goodbye..... > cheers SP > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 > From: Heather Forrest [](mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com) > > To: Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) > > CC: council at gnso.icann.org [](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org) > > Hello everyone, > > I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. > > We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three possibilities to seed the discussion: > > - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it has 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? > - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? > - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning for the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work and the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? > > Best wishes, > > Heather > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings wrote: > >> Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to the ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you have any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as possible. Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The Board has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the GNSO Council: >> >> - What are your key goals in 2018? The Board is interested in this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the community?s priorities. >> >> - What are your most relevant longer-term goals? The Board is interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and ICANN org. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> Marika Konings >> >> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >> >> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 16 02:09:12 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:09:12 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, I don't see how this has any relation to the meeting between council and board. such meeting usually cover ongoing PDP matters and council related concerns. I am also wondering why we should ask the board suggestions about accountability, they can (should) easily refer to the work done already in ws2 regarding SO/AC accountability (already approved and Farzaneh was the co-rapporteur). it may even send a wrong signal from our side to the board. I saw several threads about the CROP and understand people concerns. I think we already put that in our draft budget comment to complain about the cut. as a reminder, CROP is for outreach and not targetting our membership or informing them. Best, Rafik 2018-02-16 1:53 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : > > these are not bad questions. I think we should ask the Board if they have > suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group. Since > they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform our > members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are > contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? > I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability for > our actions and expenditures. $$$ may be going out the window with falling > registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where ICANN did > not support us for travel and admin. And nobody would wave goodbye..... > cheers SP > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at > ICANN61 > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 > From: Heather Forrest > To: Marika Konings > CC: council at gnso.icann.org > > > > Hello everyone, > > I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. > > We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for > discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three > possibilities to seed the discussion: > > - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it has > 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific > lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? > - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to identify > their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's longer-term > goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? > - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning for > the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work and > the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of > prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in > ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or > achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? > > Best wishes, > > Heather > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings > wrote: > >> Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to the >> ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you have >> any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as possible. >> Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The Board >> has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the GNSO >> Council: >> >> - *What are your key goals in 2018? * The Board is interested in this >> question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the >> community?s priorities. >> - *What are your most relevant longer-term goals?* The Board is >> interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and >> strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and >> ICANN org. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >> >> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >> >> >> >> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >> >> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> . * >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 16 02:22:33 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:22:33 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I just send my response to Stephanie at the same time. I am more cautious about this and won't really support bringing the topic for the reasons I explained. I think there is a conflation of 2 separate issues here: expectations from elected officers and members in term of behavior and accountability and the impact of the budget on our activities as SG. the former can be discussed, while I would like to understand what are the specific concerns. I know there were some issues and I don't want to single out individuals. I am also worried if there are some general insinuations substantiated or not. there is enough misunderstanding and so we need to move here carefully. We raised previously the communication issues and we are trying to make an improvement here but still to be done. I am only speaking about the policy part and so PC and councilors, I cannot speak about other committees or constituencies activities. for the budget, I agree we can advise being more carefulness of how we are using the existing resources. as I explained to many of you in private, I think we get too complacent and dependent on ICANN support e.g. expanded travel support and seeing that we are linking travel support to be active on PDPs (e.g. using it as an incentive) while the work is mostly done in working groups and intersessionally . For councilors support, I am not worried since, in fact, that is at GNSO council level and not SG. I think we can suggest being cautious for now and acknowledge that we have now may not be available in few years and think how we can do better (and also defining priorities). there was the time that admin work was done by the chair (I was the last chair to do that before we get admin support :)). Crisis can lead to more creative and original thinking. Best, Rafik 2018-02-16 9:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what > suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really > need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for > discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard > of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN > is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was > broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called > for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from > these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not > prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] > could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this > topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd > like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or > expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the > 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 15 February 2018 5:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > > these are not bad questions. I think we should ask the Board if they have > suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group. Since > they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform our > members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are > contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? > I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability for > our actions and expenditures. $$$ may be going out the window with falling > registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where ICANN did > not support us for travel and admin. And nobody would wave goodbye..... > cheers SP > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: > Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 > Date: > Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 > From: > Heather Forrest > To: > Marika Konings > CC: > council at gnso.icann.org > > > Hello everyone, > > I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. > > We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for > discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three > possibilities to seed the discussion: > > - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it has > 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific > lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? > - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to identify > their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's longer-term > goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? > - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning for > the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work and > the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of > prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in > ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or > achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? > > Best wishes, > > Heather > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings > wrote: > > Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to the >> ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you have >> any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as possible. >> Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The Board >> has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the GNSO >> Council: >> >> - *What are your key goals in 2018? * The Board is interested in this >> question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the >> community?s priorities. >> - *What are your most relevant longer-term goals?* The Board is >> interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and >> strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and >> ICANN org. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >> >> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >> >> >> >> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >> >> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> . * >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Feb 16 02:35:22 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:35:22 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <45c5fa78-4aa3-d9c9-8d21-2cb6954d9ebd@mail.utoronto.ca> Apologies for the confusion, I did not mean for us to discuss this with the GNSO, I was just thinking when we meet ourselves with the Board, it would send a really good signal to them if we were actually working on our own accountability issues and seeking their input, rather than (as is usually our style) bellyaching about them or the budget or or or.... Steph On 2018-02-15 19:09, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > I don't see how this has any relation to the meeting between council > and board. such meeting usually cover ongoing PDP matters and council > related concerns. > > I am also wondering why we should ask the board suggestions about > accountability, they can (should) easily refer to the work done > already in ws2 regarding SO/AC accountability (already approved and > Farzaneh was the co-rapporteur). it may even send a wrong signal from > our side to the board. > > I saw several threads about the CROP and understand people concerns. I > think we already put that in our draft budget comment to complain > about the cut. as a reminder, CROP is for outreach and not targetting > our membership or informing them. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-16 1:53 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin > >: > > > these are not bad questions.? I think we should ask the Board if > they have suggestions for greater accountability in our > stakeholder group.? Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, > how do they propose we inform our members of the complexity of > ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are contributing effectively > to the MS model on which ICANN depends? > I think our goals for next year should include greater > accountability for our actions and expenditures.? $$$ may be going > out the window with falling registrar revenues, and we may be > coming back to a world where ICANN did not support us for travel > and admin.? And nobody would wave goodbye..... > cheers SP > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN > Board at ICANN61 > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 > From: Heather Forrest > > To: Marika Konings > > CC: council at gnso.icann.org > > > > > Hello everyone, > > I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. > > We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board > for discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here > are three possibilities to seed the discussion: > > * SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that > it has 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT > pause. What specific lessons have been learned and how will > these affect future Board action? > * Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to > identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the > Board's longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? > * The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning > for the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high > volume of work and the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the > need for and benefit of prioritisation. Considering the many > activities currently underway in ICANN, which do the Board > consider to be top priority? What milestones or achievements > is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? > > Best wishes, > > Heather > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings > > wrote: > > Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to > submit to the ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint > meeting at ICANN61. If you have any proposed topics, please > share these with the list as soon as possible. Topics are > expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The > Board has suggested the following two topics for its meeting > with the GNSO Council: > > * *What are your key goals in 2018? *?The Board is > interested in this question to make sure that its own > priorities are aligned with the community?s priorities. > * *What are your most relevant longer-term goals?*??The > Board is interested in this question because discussions > about longer-term goals and strategic planning will > commence soon between the community, the Board and ICANN org. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > */Marika Konings/* > > /Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / > > /Email: marika.konings at icann.org > / > > // > > /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ > > /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive > courses ?and visiting the > GNSO Newcomer pages > . > / > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 raquino at gmail.com Fri Feb 16 02:56:10 2018 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:56:10 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: [observer] Hi (1st message here so hope I'm not pulverized in beam of lava coming from my computer as I speak up about this) As a current Chair, thankfully with administrative support (1, yet there is), (limited) meeting attendance support for the group, I will just note that we do not take lightly our resources currently. There are several criteria put in place for use of resources, previously, during and after the meetings. It takes time for a member to do well on writing, contributing to WGs and many other activities. Participating in meetings accelerates that learning time and yes, CROP activities help immensely too. So I do not see this [hindering volunteer participation] as saving cost measure from any volunteer organization. It is rather a very shortsighted move which can concentrate even further an organization in the hands of those who can buy their ticket. The real reason I came to comment here as that, yes, I am one of those who could probably be singled out as an example of travel which was allocated and not completed as I won't be with you in ICANN61. That decision was also not taken lightly and the after effects of it just keep coming. So I guess I would only hope that the tone that we debate travel allocation is not only about saving a few pennies but also seeing the organization from a broader perspective. Specific cases or not. CROP or meeting support. There is no other volunteer organization that I know of so narrow minded about discussing support more than ICANN currently And not only the deletion of CROP but its silent assassination after being labelled a success w/out any hint of prior investigation or consultation to the community or announcement is only a prelude of even worse practices to come. Discussing at least the arbitrary decision should be done, at least as preparedness for other arbitrary decisions to come. Best, Renata On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I just send my response to Stephanie at the same time. I am more cautious > about this and won't really support bringing the topic for the reasons I > explained. > > I think there is a conflation of 2 separate issues here: expectations from > elected officers and members in term of behavior and accountability and the > impact of the budget on our activities as SG. > > the former can be discussed, while I would like to understand what are the > specific concerns. I know there were some issues and I don't want to > single out individuals. I am also worried if there are some general > insinuations substantiated or not. there is enough misunderstanding and so > we need to move here carefully. We raised previously the communication > issues and we are trying to make an improvement here but still to be done. > I am only speaking about the policy part and so PC and councilors, I cannot > speak about other committees or constituencies activities. > > for the budget, I agree we can advise being more carefulness of how we are > using the existing resources. as I explained to many of you in private, I > think we get too complacent and dependent on ICANN support e.g. expanded > travel support and seeing that we are linking travel support to be active > on PDPs (e.g. using it as an incentive) while the work is mostly done in > working groups and intersessionally . > For councilors support, I am not worried since, in fact, that is at GNSO > council level and not SG. I think we can suggest being cautious for now and > acknowledge that we have now may not be available in few years and think > how we can do better (and also defining priorities). there was the time > that admin work was done by the chair (I was the last chair to do that > before we get admin support :)). Crisis can lead to more creative and > original thinking. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-16 9:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what >> suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really >> need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for >> discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard >> of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN >> is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was >> broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called >> for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from >> these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not >> prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] >> could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this >> topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd >> like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or >> expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the >> 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >> >> Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 15 February 2018 5:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >> >> these are not bad questions. I think we should ask the Board if they >> have suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group. >> Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform >> our members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are >> contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? >> I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability for >> our actions and expenditures. $$$ may be going out the window with falling >> registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where ICANN did >> not support us for travel and admin. And nobody would wave goodbye..... >> cheers SP >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: >> Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 >> Date: >> Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 >> From: >> Heather Forrest >> To: >> Marika Konings >> CC: >> council at gnso.icann.org >> >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. >> >> We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for >> discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three >> possibilities to seed the discussion: >> >> - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it has >> 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific >> lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? >> - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to >> identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's >> longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? >> - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning for >> the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work and >> the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of >> prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in >> ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or >> achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Heather >> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings >> wrote: >> >> Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to the >>> ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you have >>> any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as possible. >>> Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The Board >>> has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the GNSO >>> Council: >>> >>> - *What are your key goals in 2018? * The Board is interested in >>> this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the >>> community?s priorities. >>> - *What are your most relevant longer-term goals?* The Board is >>> interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and >>> strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and >>> ICANN org. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>> >>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>> >>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> . * >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> council mailing list >>> council at gnso.icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dave at davecake.net Fri Feb 16 07:36:33 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:36:33 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74F67937-A810-4FDD-8F5A-EE69E3BE9FB7@davecake.net> The only problem with the procedure is that it takes the really difficult parts of the process, and turns it into ?seek consensus?, which practically may need a lot more detail. Though some of that detail may be more useful to do ad hoc depending on number of interested candidates etc, and there probably really is no useful way to make consensus easier to find purely through process, and it?s valuable to make it very clear tha5 consensus is required. Also, while full consensus is clearly ideal, should probably be ?rough consensus?, we need a clear 8+ votes not unanimity (we don?t want to allow any single councillor to derail the process). But I thoroughly agree that seeking rough consensus between the SGs before the ballot is the only practical functional process. Running against NOTA serves as a useful check on attempts to game negotiations, and is needed for formality. David Sent from my iPad > On 13 Feb 2018, at 7:49 am, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple candidates if I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on past experience (3 elections and some of them reached deadlocks, Rafik can elaborate) having multiple candidates to vote on is not in the interest of NCSG. What worked well for NCSG and CSG in previous elections is to discuss until they come up with one consensus candidate to vote on. > > As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the last Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common practice in GNSO elections. > Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA . 13 to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA plays a tie-breaker here]. > > Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election with one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in the past and it is needed for formality and procedural matter. > > If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the election, he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there certainly is a problem and it makes sense to re-start the process to solve that between the 2 groups. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > (this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's response below.) > > > > > > Farzaneh > >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer wrote: >> I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even commented on my earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer. >> >> Questions on your proposal: >> >> 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier? >> 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning? >> 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and interviewers will be from both SGs? >> >>> NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus >>> candidate to run for the election. >> >> >> 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only candidate and then it would not make sense to have elections anymore. I think you meant that both SGs decide on their best candidate but what would then be the consensus candidate of the NCA? >> >> I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be relatively hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it doesn't happen, the whole thing is restarted god knows how many times. >> >> For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal: >> >> Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round. >> >> Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better. >> >> Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. >> >> -Raoul >> >>> On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC wrote: >>> We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based on our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose to the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. We want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. >>> >>> The procedure is attached. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 16 08:20:45 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:20:45 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I am sorry Stephanie, I do not support this question at all. Especially how it has been framed. As the co-rapporteur of SOAC Accountability, I have seen many times how these discussions can go in the wrong direction of blaming the community for whatever is wrong with ICANN. We don't have to ask the Board how can we be accountable. We have many mechanisms for that and SOAC accountability also has recommendations. What we should ask the Board is that, whenever we complain about community input not being considered, the Board response would be: but the community did not come up with a consensus policy or a response. How do they expect us to get involved meaningfully with policy development at ICANN when they cut our budget? How do they expect us to be meaningfully engaged with various groups when we are under-resourced. Community brings ICANN legitimacy, by cutting its funding and weakening its participation it will certainly hamper its own legitimacy.We need the Board to be closer to the community, understand its needs and create a bridge between ICANN org and ICANN community, (yes yes while protecting the corporate interest, we know that is their main function). Board should not see community access to resources as a problem but a solution and if it has to make budgetary decisions, the community should not be the first group to be affected, budget cuts should happen at all levels, and Board should also take steps to reduce the costs of its own operation. We are already working on our accountability.SOAC accountability recommendations are on their way. And we already have mechanisms both in operating procedure and bylaws to make us accountable. We should see how the board is accountable to this community. Farzaneh On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > [observer] > > Hi > > (1st message here so hope I'm not pulverized in beam of lava coming from > my computer as I speak up about this) > > As a current Chair, thankfully with administrative support (1, yet there > is), (limited) meeting attendance support for the group, I will just note > that we do not take lightly our resources currently. > There are several criteria put in place for use of resources, previously, > during and after the meetings. > It takes time for a member to do well on writing, contributing to WGs and > many other activities. Participating in meetings accelerates that learning > time and yes, CROP activities help immensely too. > > So I do not see this [hindering volunteer participation] as saving cost > measure from any volunteer organization. It is rather a very shortsighted > move which can concentrate even further an organization in the hands of > those who can buy their ticket. > > The real reason I came to comment here as that, yes, I am one of those who > could probably be singled out as an example of travel which was allocated > and not completed as I won't be with you in ICANN61. That decision was also > not taken lightly and the after effects of it just keep coming. > > So I guess I would only hope that the tone that we debate travel > allocation is not only about saving a few pennies but also seeing the > organization from a broader perspective. Specific cases or not. CROP or > meeting support. There is no other volunteer organization that I know of so > narrow minded about discussing support more than ICANN currently > > And not only the deletion of CROP but its silent assassination after being > labelled a success w/out any hint of prior investigation or consultation to > the community or announcement is only a prelude of even worse practices to > come. > > Discussing at least the arbitrary decision should be done, at least as > preparedness for other arbitrary decisions to come. > > Best, > > Renata > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> I just send my response to Stephanie at the same time. I am more cautious >> about this and won't really support bringing the topic for the reasons I >> explained. >> >> I think there is a conflation of 2 separate issues here: expectations >> from elected officers and members in term of behavior and accountability >> and the impact of the budget on our activities as SG. >> >> the former can be discussed, while I would like to understand what are >> the specific concerns. I know there were some issues and I don't want to >> single out individuals. I am also worried if there are some general >> insinuations substantiated or not. there is enough misunderstanding and so >> we need to move here carefully. We raised previously the communication >> issues and we are trying to make an improvement here but still to be done. >> I am only speaking about the policy part and so PC and councilors, I cannot >> speak about other committees or constituencies activities. >> >> for the budget, I agree we can advise being more carefulness of how we >> are using the existing resources. as I explained to many of you in >> private, I think we get too complacent and dependent on ICANN support e.g. >> expanded travel support and seeing that we are linking travel support to be >> active on PDPs (e.g. using it as an incentive) while the work is mostly >> done in working groups and intersessionally . >> For councilors support, I am not worried since, in fact, that is at GNSO >> council level and not SG. I think we can suggest being cautious for now and >> acknowledge that we have now may not be available in few years and think >> how we can do better (and also defining priorities). there was the time >> that admin work was done by the chair (I was the last chair to do that >> before we get admin support :)). Crisis can lead to more creative and >> original thinking. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-16 9:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what >>> suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really >>> need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for >>> discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard >>> of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN >>> is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was >>> broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called >>> for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from >>> these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not >>> prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] >>> could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this >>> topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd >>> like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or >>> expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the >>> 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 15 February 2018 5:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>> >>> >>> these are not bad questions. I think we should ask the Board if they >>> have suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group. >>> Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform >>> our members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are >>> contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? >>> I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability >>> for our actions and expenditures. $$$ may be going out the window with >>> falling registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where >>> ICANN did not support us for travel and admin. And nobody would wave >>> goodbye..... >>> cheers SP >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: >>> Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 >>> Date: >>> Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 >>> From: >>> Heather Forrest >>> To: >>> Marika Konings >>> CC: >>> council at gnso.icann.org >>> >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. >>> >>> We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for >>> discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three >>> possibilities to seed the discussion: >>> >>> - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it >>> has 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific >>> lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? >>> - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to >>> identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's >>> longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? >>> - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning for >>> the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work and >>> the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of >>> prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in >>> ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or >>> achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Heather >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings >> > wrote: >>> >>> Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to the >>>> ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you have >>>> any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as possible. >>>> Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The Board >>>> has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the GNSO >>>> Council: >>>> >>>> - *What are your key goals in 2018? * The Board is interested in >>>> this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the >>>> community?s priorities. >>>> - *What are your most relevant longer-term goals?* The Board is >>>> interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and >>>> strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and >>>> ICANN org. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Marika >>>> >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>> >>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>> >>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>> . * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> council mailing list >>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 16 11:05:32 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 04:05:32 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks, Sam, I found this very useful. I don't believe that community travel is a large expense for ICANN; relative to staff travel, it is nothing. ICANN flew 220+ staff to Abu Dhabi, and gave the NCSG and NCUC three travel slots each. Yes, others have alternative funding, be that through the Council, Review Teams, Onboarding, or Fellowships, but this support is not extensive. The real cost base at ICANN is not us - it's personnel costs, consultants, external counsel, and other "professional services", leasing office space, and staff travel to an array of irrelevant events. So when we fight for our five CROP slots to be retained, I hope we can make it clear that we understand the need for fiscal prudence and believe ICANN should only be funding activities related to its core mission. CROP is; those expensive Boston Consulting Group papers (which a former Board member described on Facebook as being "recycled" over and over again, so why does ICANN keep buying them?) and other spend are not... That said, I think you're right that cuts are going to continue coming our way, so the time is now for us to start 'boosting our defences' and get out there fundraising, boosting our own Reserve Fund, and perhaps becoming enough of a legal entity to be able to do all that... Also - your note about the org's dissatisfaction with the PDP model reminds me that we (NCSG) haven't sent any feedback in on the staff whitepaper on this topic (the one drafted by Emily and Marika that could spell an end to bottom-up, end-user participation at ICANN). We should probably add that to the long list of statements we need to draft urgently... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 16 February 2018 1:37 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Ayden, et. al., > > The gist of my comments on Skype (reproduced below) are that ICANN is probably at an inflection point on its revenue growth curve, and the budgets will get tighter going forward. There are diminishing returns from new gTLDs, when they come, there are social media options to registering domain names, both for persons and entities, and there are likely to be new technologies for Registrars to do their work. The prospects for a Distributed Ledger Technology (think blockchain 3.0 or Tangle 4.0 - i.e., down the road) will likely reduce the earned fees from existing domain name registrations. READ: ICANN's budget will shrink, hence my analogy of ICANN going from a Plum to a Prune. > > This means that NCSG (& NCUC/NPOC) have to seriously look inward and assess the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the ICANN expenditures they account for. Xavier and crew have gone a considerable distance in giving us the granularity of budget expenses we asked for, to aid us in decision making. While we can mount arguments for why CROPP needs to be retained, we are implicitly (with silence) saying that everything else needs to be retained (mainly with regard to travel and accommodations - the big budget items). > > It is my assessment that a "no shrinkage" strategy with regard to the NCSG entitlement is a "no go", and that budget cuts will come with or without consultation. This may take a couple of years to roll out, but the NCSG & Co future will be will less ICANN funding. We can either think through how we adjust to that, we can start to look for other funding, or we can do both. What we cannot do, for much longer, is just insist on the status quo based simply on the notion that we we do is a good idea and in the Public Interest. > > At the same time, we are hearing more and more about how ICANN the org, and ICANN the board are not happy with the dynamics and the progress of the ICANN pdp-wg model. We should anticipate, and help shape, changes there. Those of you meeting in Puerto Rico should be spending considerable time on how NCSG deals with these issues (or show that I have it wrong) and spend less time in a dance that makes it look like we are trying to hold the Board and ICANN org more accountable. > > Sam L > > [Skype posting] By the last time I was able to attend an ICANN meeting (ICANN58: Copenhagen) Xavier had discussed greater budget granularity with NCSG and pledged to improve access and transparency. We may quibble on how much we now have, and how far ICANN has gone in improved granularity, but it is important to recognize that Xavier has gone a great distance in honoring that pledge. > > That budget lines are under threat should come as no surprise as ICANN faces tighter revenues, and as ICANN goes forward both with a bit of belt tightening, and (not surprisingly) some reflection and reviews around how it carries out its work. > > I, as an outsider with no inside information, suspect that ICANN will have to undergo a bit of organizational restructuring in the service of its remit and do so within tightening budget constraints. While NCSG, and NCUC & NPOC, concern themselves with the short run future of CROPP, we should be thinking about structural changes that may even impact on our respective charters. At least that is my read from the outer seats in the stadium. > > On 2/15/2018 7:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >> >> Ayden > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ??????????????????????? > ------------------------------------------------ > Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > email: > Lanfran at Yorku.ca > Skype: slanfranco > blog: > https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Feb 16 11:31:20 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 04:31:20 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Renata, I'm going to rehash a conversation I had with you privately, because it's now on the list: ICANN does not care that you cancelled your trip to San Juan because of a family emergency. So please do not worry about this. I know you are, but please don't. This is not an example of resources being mishandled, and ICANN org does not see it this way either. Now that has been said... it might be a useful exercise for us to table what resources ICANN gives us. I did ask Finance for one, but they are extremely reluctant to prepare such a table. I think they worry we will use it compare ourselves to other SO/ACs (which we might - and we might be upset if we saw another part of the community receiving more support than we do). But the reason why I think it would be useful is because we do receive a lot of 'soft' resources from ICANN, not just Maryam. We get Adobe Connect, we get the dial-outs (which are surprisingly expensive), we get the communications support (i.e. when I ordered NCUC stickers and Comms reimbursed me), if we ask enough times, we get translation/interpretation on a call. There might be other support too that we don't appreciate today, but would feel if it is disappeared.. So ICANN does give us a lot of support. The question is, is it the right support? Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 16 February 2018 1:56 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > [observer] > > Hi > > (1st message here so hope I'm not pulverized in beam of lava coming from my computer as I speak up about this) > > As a current Chair, thankfully with administrative support (1, yet there is), (limited) meeting attendance support for the group, I will just note that we do not take lightly our resources currently. > There are several criteria put in place for use of resources, previously, during and after the meetings. > It takes time for a member to do well on writing, contributing to WGs and many other activities. Participating in meetings accelerates that learning time and yes, CROP activities help immensely too. > > So I do not see this [hindering volunteer participation] as saving cost measure from any volunteer organization. It is rather a very shortsighted move which can concentrate even further an organization in the hands of those who can buy their ticket. > > The real reason I came to comment here as that, yes, I am one of those who could probably be singled out as an example of travel which was allocated and not completed as I won't be with you in ICANN61. That decision was also not taken lightly and the after effects of it just keep coming. > > So I guess I would only hope that the tone that we debate travel allocation is not only about saving a few pennies but also seeing the organization from a broader perspective. Specific cases or not. CROP or meeting support. There is no other volunteer organization that I know of so narrow minded about discussing support more than ICANN currently > > And not only the deletion of CROP but its silent assassination after being labelled a success w/out any hint of prior investigation or consultation to the community or announcement is only a prelude of even worse practices to come. > > Discussing at least the arbitrary decision should be done, at least as preparedness for other arbitrary decisions to come. > > Best, > > Renata > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> I just send my response to Stephanie at the same time. I am more cautious about this and won't really support bringing the topic for the reasons I explained. >> >> I think there is a conflation of 2 separate issues here: expectations from elected officers and members in term of behavior and accountability and the impact of the budget on our activities as SG. >> >> the former can be discussed, while I would like to understand what are the specific concerns. I know there were some issues and I don't want to single out individuals. I am also worried if there are some general insinuations substantiated or not. there is enough misunderstanding and so we need to move here carefully. We raised previously the communication issues and we are trying to make an improvement here but still to be done. I am only speaking about the policy part and so PC and councilors, I cannot speak about other committees or constituencies activities. >> >> for the budget, I agree we can advise being more carefulness of how we are using the existing resources. as I explained to many of you in private, I think we get too complacent and dependent on ICANN support e.g. expanded travel support and seeing that we are linking travel support to be active on PDPs (e.g. using it as an incentive) while the work is mostly done in working groups and intersessionally . >> For councilors support, I am not worried since, in fact, that is at GNSO council level and not SG. I think we can suggest being cautious for now and acknowledge that we have now may not be available in few years and think how we can do better (and also defining priorities). there was the time that admin work was done by the chair (I was the last chair to do that before we get admin support :)). Crisis can lead to more creative and original thinking. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-16 9:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 15 February 2018 5:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>>> these are not bad questions. I think we should ask the Board if they have suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group. Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform our members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? >>>> I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability for our actions and expenditures. $$$ may be going out the window with falling registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where ICANN did not support us for travel and admin. And nobody would wave goodbye..... >>>> cheers SP >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 >>>> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 >>>> From: Heather Forrest [](mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com) >>>> >>>> To: Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) >>>> >>>> CC: council at gnso.icann.org [](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org) >>>> >>>> Hello everyone, >>>> >>>> I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. >>>> >>>> We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three possibilities to seed the discussion: >>>> >>>> - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it has 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? >>>> - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? >>>> - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning for the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work and the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Heather >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >>>> >>>>> Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to the ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you have any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as possible. Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The Board has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the GNSO Council: >>>>> >>>>> - What are your key goals in 2018? The Board is interested in this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the community?s priorities. >>>>> >>>>> - What are your most relevant longer-term goals? The Board is interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and ICANN org. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Marika >>>>> >>>>> Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> >>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>> >>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> council mailing list >>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Feb 16 11:50:12 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 04:50:12 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks, Farzaneh- A lot of food for thought here. On one hand, I very much agree with you. A huge +1 from me to this statement: "How do they expect us to be meaningfully engaged with various groups when we are under-resourced. Community brings ICANN legitimacy, by cutting its funding and weakening its participation it will certainly hamper its own legitimacy." Hand in hand with legitimacy is accountability. I believe it is ultimately up to the Board to make sure that we are here truly here speaking up on behalf of non-commercial uses and users, because multistakeholderism is key to ICANN?s governance model. It is also up to us, but if the Board identified a stakeholder group not participating in ICANN policy discussions or facilitating ICANN?s stated objective of promoting the global public interest, I think it would be remiss if it did not flag this and try to address it. I think if we are frank we would say that we are struggling with the question of accountability. We do not have a code of conduct or enforced standards of behaviour, and it's previously been flagged that we have constituencies whose Executives are sometimes not making decisions in a consistent manner. We have members who no longer meet our eligibility criteria, yet they can vote in our elections. To say nothing of the fact that we have a constituency whose Executive has a mailing list that is not archived, and while to be very clear I am insinuating nothing nefarious, I believe that could be argued to contravene section 1.2 b) of our charter (Principles for Members and Leaders - Transparency). We have unique challenges and very few resources. I think Stephanie is right to suggest we raise our hand and ask for help. We have a lot on our plate at the moment and a part of me thinks, 'we don't have time to get our house in order,' but maybe we have to make the time. Let's not leave this to the next GNSO Review... Looking forward to hearing your ideas, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 16 February 2018 7:20 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > I am sorry Stephanie, I do not support this question at all. Especially how it has been framed. As the co-rapporteur of SOAC Accountability, I have seen many times how these discussions can go in the wrong direction of blaming the community for whatever is wrong with ICANN. We don't have to ask the Board how can we be accountable. We have many mechanisms for that and SOAC accountability also has recommendations. > > What we should ask the Board is that, whenever we complain about community input not being considered, the Board response would be: but the community did not come up with a consensus policy or a response. How do they expect us to get involved meaningfully with policy development at ICANN when they cut our budget? How do they expect us to be meaningfully engaged with various groups when we are under-resourced. Community brings ICANN legitimacy, by cutting its funding and weakening its participation it will certainly hamper its own legitimacy.We need the Board to be closer to the community, understand its needs and create a bridge between ICANN org and ICANN community, (yes yes while protecting the corporate interest, we know that is their main function). Board should not see community access to resources as a problem but a solution and if it has to make budgetary decisions, the community should not be the first group to be affected, budget cuts should happen at all levels, and Board should also take steps to reduce the costs of its own operation. > > We are already working on our accountability.SOAC accountability recommendations are on their way. And we already have mechanisms both in operating procedure and bylaws to make us accountable. We should see how the board is accountable to this community. > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > >> [observer] >> >> Hi >> >> (1st message here so hope I'm not pulverized in beam of lava coming from my computer as I speak up about this) >> >> As a current Chair, thankfully with administrative support (1, yet there is), (limited) meeting attendance support for the group, I will just note that we do not take lightly our resources currently. >> There are several criteria put in place for use of resources, previously, during and after the meetings. >> It takes time for a member to do well on writing, contributing to WGs and many other activities. Participating in meetings accelerates that learning time and yes, CROP activities help immensely too. >> >> So I do not see this [hindering volunteer participation] as saving cost measure from any volunteer organization. It is rather a very shortsighted move which can concentrate even further an organization in the hands of those who can buy their ticket. >> >> The real reason I came to comment here as that, yes, I am one of those who could probably be singled out as an example of travel which was allocated and not completed as I won't be with you in ICANN61. That decision was also not taken lightly and the after effects of it just keep coming. >> >> So I guess I would only hope that the tone that we debate travel allocation is not only about saving a few pennies but also seeing the organization from a broader perspective. Specific cases or not. CROP or meeting support. There is no other volunteer organization that I know of so narrow minded about discussing support more than ICANN currently >> >> And not only the deletion of CROP but its silent assassination after being labelled a success w/out any hint of prior investigation or consultation to the community or announcement is only a prelude of even worse practices to come. >> >> Discussing at least the arbitrary decision should be done, at least as preparedness for other arbitrary decisions to come. >> >> Best, >> >> Renata >> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I just send my response to Stephanie at the same time. I am more cautious about this and won't really support bringing the topic for the reasons I explained. >>> >>> I think there is a conflation of 2 separate issues here: expectations from elected officers and members in term of behavior and accountability and the impact of the budget on our activities as SG. >>> >>> the former can be discussed, while I would like to understand what are the specific concerns. I know there were some issues and I don't want to single out individuals. I am also worried if there are some general insinuations substantiated or not. there is enough misunderstanding and so we need to move here carefully. We raised previously the communication issues and we are trying to make an improvement here but still to be done. I am only speaking about the policy part and so PC and councilors, I cannot speak about other committees or constituencies activities. >>> >>> for the budget, I agree we can advise being more carefulness of how we are using the existing resources. as I explained to many of you in private, I think we get too complacent and dependent on ICANN support e.g. expanded travel support and seeing that we are linking travel support to be active on PDPs (e.g. using it as an incentive) while the work is mostly done in working groups and intersessionally . >>> For councilors support, I am not worried since, in fact, that is at GNSO council level and not SG. I think we can suggest being cautious for now and acknowledge that we have now may not be available in few years and think how we can do better (and also defining priorities). there was the time that admin work was done by the chair (I was the last chair to do that before we get admin support :)). Crisis can lead to more creative and original thinking. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2018-02-16 9:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> On 15 February 2018 5:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>>> these are not bad questions. I think we should ask the Board if they have suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group. Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform our members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? >>>>> I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability for our actions and expenditures. $$$ may be going out the window with falling registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where ICANN did not support us for travel and admin. And nobody would wave goodbye..... >>>>> cheers SP >>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 >>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 >>>>> From: Heather Forrest [](mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com) >>>>> >>>>> To: Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) >>>>> >>>>> CC: council at gnso.icann.org [](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org) >>>>> >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. >>>>> >>>>> We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three possibilities to seed the discussion: >>>>> >>>>> - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it has 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? >>>>> - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? >>>>> - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning for the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work and the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Heather >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to the ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you have any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as possible. Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. The Board has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the GNSO Council: >>>>>> >>>>>> - What are your key goals in 2018? The Board is interested in this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the community?s priorities. >>>>>> >>>>>> - What are your most relevant longer-term goals? The Board is interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and ICANN org. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Marika >>>>>> >>>>>> Marika Konings >>>>>> >>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>> >>>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>>> >>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> council mailing list >>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Fri Feb 16 12:05:25 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 19:05:25 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, 2018-02-16 18:50 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Thanks, Farzaneh- > > A lot of food for thought here. On one hand, I very much agree with you. A > huge +1 from me to this statement: "How do they expect us to be > meaningfully engaged with various groups when we are under-resourced. > Community brings ICANN legitimacy, by cutting its funding and weakening its > participation it will certainly hamper its own legitimacy." > > Hand in hand with legitimacy is accountability. I believe it is ultimately > up to the Board to make sure that we are here truly here speaking up on > behalf of non-commercial uses and users, because multistakeholderism is key > to ICANN?s governance model. It is also up to us, but if the Board > identified a stakeholder group not participating in ICANN policy > discussions or facilitating ICANN?s stated objective of promoting the > global public interest, I think it would be remiss if it did not flag this > and try to address it. > > I don't see why we should raise any issues if we think there are some to the board. I think Farzaneh indicated why we have to be cautious in relation to the work on SO/AC accountability. Board challenged groups accounatbility when we started asking them to be more accountable. > I think if we are frank we would say that we are struggling with the > question of accountability. We do not have a code of conduct or enforced > standards of behaviour, and it's previously been flagged that we have > constituencies whose Executives are sometimes not making decisions in a > consistent manner. We have members who no longer meet our eligibility > criteria, yet they can vote in our elections. To say nothing of the fact > that we have a constituency whose Executive has a mailing list that is not > archived, and while to be very clear I am insinuating nothing nefarious, I > believe that could be argued to contravene section 1.2 b) of our charter > (Principles for Members and Leaders - Transparency). > > I think we should check first what we have in our charter and what was done till now. The charter already outlines some expectations in term of behavior from elected people and people even used a procedure against an elected officer in the past when they felt there is something wrong. For membership elgibility, the NCSG EC drafted lately operating procedures for removing members if they ineligible. sometimes we don't to create a new things but try to use what we get already and enforce that. For constituencies status, that is the role of NCSG EC to review them and I think there was ongoing process on that matter. I know that Farzaneh as chair is keen to work on procedures at EC lebel since membership and constituencies matters under the remit of EC. for the policy committee, we can work on our own processes (I know tha I promised draft on that...) with regard to policy and activity within council We have unique challenges and very few resources. I think Stephanie is > right to suggest we raise our hand and ask for help. We have a lot on our > plate at the moment and a part of me thinks, 'we don't have time to get our > house in order,' but maybe we have to make the time. Let's not leave this > to the next GNSO Review... > > as I argued before resources and budget issues are different from accountability matters. I dont believe the board should be asked here. we need to start from within to work on those issues,such as working on procedures and processes. didn't we say we have to preserve the bottom-up model? why are we asking for top-down approach here? I join Farzaneh on objecting to ask board on this. we will get our house in order by ourselves. Best, Rafik > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 16 February 2018 7:20 AM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > I am sorry Stephanie, I do not support this question at all. Especially > how it has been framed. As the co-rapporteur of SOAC Accountability, I have > seen many times how these discussions can go in the wrong direction of > blaming the community for whatever is wrong with ICANN. We don't have to > ask the Board how can we be accountable. We have many mechanisms for that > and SOAC accountability also has recommendations. > > What we should ask the Board is that, whenever we complain about > community input not being considered, the Board response would be: but the > community did not come up with a consensus policy or a response. How do > they expect us to get involved meaningfully with policy development at > ICANN when they cut our budget? How do they expect us to be meaningfully > engaged with various groups when we are under-resourced. Community brings > ICANN legitimacy, by cutting its funding and weakening its participation it > will certainly hamper its own legitimacy.We need the Board to be closer to > the community, understand its needs and create a bridge between ICANN org > and ICANN community, (yes yes while protecting the corporate interest, we > know that is their main function). Board should not see community access > to resources as a problem but a solution and if it has to make budgetary > decisions, the community should not be the first group to be affected, > budget cuts should happen at all levels, and Board should also take steps > to reduce the costs of its own operation. > > We are already working on our accountability.SOAC accountability > recommendations are on their way. And we already have mechanisms both in > operating procedure and bylaws to make us accountable. We should see how > the board is accountable to this community. > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: > >> [observer] >> >> Hi >> >> (1st message here so hope I'm not pulverized in beam of lava coming from >> my computer as I speak up about this) >> >> As a current Chair, thankfully with administrative support (1, yet there >> is), (limited) meeting attendance support for the group, I will just note >> that we do not take lightly our resources currently. >> There are several criteria put in place for use of resources, previously, >> during and after the meetings. >> It takes time for a member to do well on writing, contributing to WGs and >> many other activities. Participating in meetings accelerates that learning >> time and yes, CROP activities help immensely too. >> >> So I do not see this [hindering volunteer participation] as saving cost >> measure from any volunteer organization. It is rather a very shortsighted >> move which can concentrate even further an organization in the hands of >> those who can buy their ticket. >> >> The real reason I came to comment here as that, yes, I am one of those >> who could probably be singled out as an example of travel which was >> allocated and not completed as I won't be with you in ICANN61. That >> decision was also not taken lightly and the after effects of it just keep >> coming. >> >> So I guess I would only hope that the tone that we debate travel >> allocation is not only about saving a few pennies but also seeing the >> organization from a broader perspective. Specific cases or not. CROP or >> meeting support. There is no other volunteer organization that I know of so >> narrow minded about discussing support more than ICANN currently >> >> And not only the deletion of CROP but its silent assassination after >> being labelled a success w/out any hint of prior investigation or >> consultation to the community or announcement is only a prelude of even >> worse practices to come. >> >> Discussing at least the arbitrary decision should be done, at least as >> preparedness for other arbitrary decisions to come. >> >> Best, >> >> Renata >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I just send my response to Stephanie at the same time. I am more >>> cautious about this and won't really support bringing the topic for the >>> reasons I explained. >>> >>> I think there is a conflation of 2 separate issues here: expectations >>> from elected officers and members in term of behavior and accountability >>> and the impact of the budget on our activities as SG. >>> >>> the former can be discussed, while I would like to understand what are >>> the specific concerns. I know there were some issues and I don't want to >>> single out individuals. I am also worried if there are some general >>> insinuations substantiated or not. there is enough misunderstanding and so >>> we need to move here carefully. We raised previously the communication >>> issues and we are trying to make an improvement here but still to be done. >>> I am only speaking about the policy part and so PC and councilors, I cannot >>> speak about other committees or constituencies activities. >>> >>> for the budget, I agree we can advise being more carefulness of how we >>> are using the existing resources. as I explained to many of you in >>> private, I think we get too complacent and dependent on ICANN support e.g. >>> expanded travel support and seeing that we are linking travel support to be >>> active on PDPs (e.g. using it as an incentive) while the work is mostly >>> done in working groups and intersessionally . >>> For councilors support, I am not worried since, in fact, that is at GNSO >>> council level and not SG. I think we can suggest being cautious for now and >>> acknowledge that we have now may not be available in few years and think >>> how we can do better (and also defining priorities). there was the time >>> that admin work was done by the chair (I was the last chair to do that >>> before we get admin support :)). Crisis can lead to more creative and >>> original thinking. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2018-02-16 9:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what >>>> suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really >>>> need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for >>>> discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard >>>> of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN >>>> is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was >>>> broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called >>>> for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from >>>> these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not >>>> prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] >>>> could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this >>>> topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd >>>> like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or >>>> expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the >>>> 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> On 15 February 2018 5:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> these are not bad questions. I think we should ask the Board if they >>>> have suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group. >>>> Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform >>>> our members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are >>>> contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends? >>>> I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability >>>> for our actions and expenditures. $$$ may be going out the window with >>>> falling registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where >>>> ICANN did not support us for travel and admin. And nobody would wave >>>> goodbye..... >>>> cheers SP >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: >>>> Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 >>>> Date: >>>> Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100 >>>> From: >>>> Heather Forrest >>>> To: >>>> Marika Konings >>>> CC: >>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello everyone, >>>> >>>> I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA. >>>> >>>> We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for >>>> discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three >>>> possibilities to seed the discussion: >>>> >>>> - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it >>>> has 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific >>>> lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action? >>>> - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to >>>> identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's >>>> longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends? >>>> - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning >>>> for the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work >>>> and the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of >>>> prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in >>>> ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or >>>> achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Heather >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings < >>>> marika.konings at icann.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Reminder ? the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to >>>>> the ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you >>>>> have any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as >>>>> possible. Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest. >>>>> The Board has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the >>>>> GNSO Council: >>>>> >>>>> - *What are your key goals in 2018? * The Board is interested in >>>>> this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the >>>>> community?s priorities. >>>>> - *What are your most relevant longer-term goals?* The Board is >>>>> interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and >>>>> strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and >>>>> ICANN org. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Marika >>>>> >>>>> *Marika Konings* >>>>> >>>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>>> >>>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>>> >>>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>> . * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> council mailing list >>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Feb 16 16:24:12 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:24:12 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Excellent ideas, Sam. Thanks for sharing these. I'm happy to 'pilot' the NCSG Nano-Mentoring Initiative at the Internet Freedom Festival in Valencia next month, which I am participating in with the support of CROP. Happy to touch base with our members on the ground - Dina, Bonface, Olga, Rafael, Joana, and there might be others - to see if we can make this work. This would be a good outcome to highlight in the the CROP post-trip report that I am required to submit to ICANN org. Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 16 February 2018 3:04 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Ayden, > > Thanks for your comments. You have hit both points, (a) we have to conduct a critical due diligence on the overall pattern of ICANN spending, looking at effectiveness and efficiency, and (b) we have to look at the (admittedly tiny) slice of the ICANN budget going to NCSG similarly in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. We should have no problems with efficiency since the NCSG crowd engages with near zero perks above basic expenses. We should do more in documenting effectiveness. That needs to go beyond how many people showed up for something, but what were the subsequent outcomes and follow up. Even little things like an NCSG Nano-Mentoring Initiative, where at a CROPP event one or two attendees are identified for some one-on-one informal mentoring around ICANN engagement, and followed up with for 3-4 months in ways that may draw them, or others, into engagement with policy processes. That would up the outcomes from CROPP. > > Sam > > On 2/16/2018 4:05 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks, Sam, I found this very useful. >> >> I don't believe that community travel is a large expense for ICANN; relative to staff travel, it is nothing. ICANN flew 220+ staff to Abu Dhabi, and gave the NCSG and NCUC three travel slots each. Yes, others have alternative funding, be that through the Council, Review Teams, Onboarding, or Fellowships, but this support is not extensive. >> >> The real cost base at ICANN is not us - it's personnel costs, consultants, external counsel, and other "professional services", leasing office space, and staff travel to an array of irrelevant events. So when we fight for our five CROP slots to be retained, I hope we can make it clear that we understand the need for fiscal prudence and believe ICANN should only be funding activities related to its core mission. CROP is; those expensive Boston Consulting Group papers (which a former Board member described on Facebook as being "recycled" over and over again, so why does ICANN keep buying them?) and other spend are not... >> >> That said, I think you're right that cuts are going to continue coming our way, so the time is now for us to start 'boosting our defences' and get out there fundraising, boosting our own Reserve Fund, and perhaps becoming enough of a legal entity to be able to do all that... >> >> Also - your note about the org's dissatisfaction with the PDP model reminds me that we (NCSG) haven't sent any feedback in on the staff whitepaper on this topic (the one drafted by Emily and Marika that could spell an end to bottom-up, end-user participation at ICANN). We should probably add that to the long list of statements we need to draft urgently... >> >> Ayden >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 16 February 2018 1:37 AM, Sam Lanfranco [](mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote: >> >>> Ayden, et. al., >>> >>> The gist of my comments on Skype (reproduced below) are that ICANN is probably at an inflection point on its revenue growth curve, and the budgets will get tighter going forward. There are diminishing returns from new gTLDs, when they come, there are social media options to registering domain names, both for persons and entities, and there are likely to be new technologies for Registrars to do their work. The prospects for a Distributed Ledger Technology (think blockchain 3.0 or Tangle 4.0 - i.e., down the road) will likely reduce the earned fees from existing domain name registrations. READ: ICANN's budget will shrink, hence my analogy of ICANN going from a Plum to a Prune. >>> >>> This means that NCSG (& NCUC/NPOC) have to seriously look inward and assess the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the ICANN expenditures they account for. Xavier and crew have gone a considerable distance in giving us the granularity of budget expenses we asked for, to aid us in decision making. While we can mount arguments for why CROPP needs to be retained, we are implicitly (with silence) saying that everything else needs to be retained (mainly with regard to travel and accommodations - the big budget items). >>> >>> It is my assessment that a "no shrinkage" strategy with regard to the NCSG entitlement is a "no go", and that budget cuts will come with or without consultation. This may take a couple of years to roll out, but the NCSG & Co future will be will less ICANN funding. We can either think through how we adjust to that, we can start to look for other funding, or we can do both. What we cannot do, for much longer, is just insist on the status quo based simply on the notion that we we do is a good idea and in the Public Interest. >>> >>> At the same time, we are hearing more and more about how ICANN the org, and ICANN the board are not happy with the dynamics and the progress of the ICANN pdp-wg model. We should anticipate, and help shape, changes there. Those of you meeting in Puerto Rico should be spending considerable time on how NCSG deals with these issues (or show that I have it wrong) and spend less time in a dance that makes it look like we are trying to hold the Board and ICANN org more accountable. >>> >>> Sam L >>> >>> [Skype posting] By the last time I was able to attend an ICANN meeting (ICANN58: Copenhagen) Xavier had discussed greater budget granularity with NCSG and pledged to improve access and transparency. We may quibble on how much we now have, and how far ICANN has gone in improved granularity, but it is important to recognize that Xavier has gone a great distance in honoring that pledge. >>> >>> That budget lines are under threat should come as no surprise as ICANN faces tighter revenues, and as ICANN goes forward both with a bit of belt tightening, and (not surprisingly) some reflection and reviews around how it carries out its work. >>> >>> I, as an outsider with no inside information, suspect that ICANN will have to undergo a bit of organizational restructuring in the service of its remit and do so within tightening budget constraints. While NCSG, and NCUC & NPOC, concern themselves with the short run future of CROPP, we should be thinking about structural changes that may even impact on our respective charters. At least that is my read from the outer seats in the stadium. >>> >>> On 2/15/2018 7:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >>>> >>>> Ayden >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >>> in an unjust state" -Confucius >>> ??????????????????????? >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China >>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >>> email: >>> Lanfran at Yorku.ca >>> Skype: slanfranco >>> blog: >>> https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >>> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ??????????????????????? > ------------------------------------------------ > Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > email: > Lanfran at Yorku.ca > Skype: slanfranco > blog: > https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Feb 16 17:14:56 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:14:56 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: <9d7bf426-4694-4773-d1e5-67841bcac866@yorku.ca> References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> <9d7bf426-4694-4773-d1e5-67841bcac866@yorku.ca> Message-ID: I agree. Some past attempts at mentoring have become over-engineered to the point that no one would possibly sign up to be a mentor. That's not the goal here, which is to engage in some constituency/stakeholder group in-reach on a small scale. I like the idea. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 16 February 2018 4:12 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Ayden, > > I might add that Nano-Mentoring needs no additional resources, no organizational structures, and is a bit what a number of us have done in any event. This just Brands it, and tracks it a bit to record it as an NCSG deliverable from ICANN sponsored activities. Past discussions around more formal mentoring programs got bogged down in turf creep and budget issues. > > Sam > > On 2/16/2018 9:24 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Excellent ideas, Sam. Thanks for sharing these. >> >> I'm happy to 'pilot' the NCSG Nano-Mentoring Initiative at the Internet Freedom Festival in Valencia next month, which I am participating in with the support of CROP. Happy to touch base with our members on the ground - Dina, Bonface, Olga, Rafael, Joana, and there might be others - to see if we can make this work. This would be a good outcome to highlight in the the CROP post-trip report that I am required to submit to ICANN org. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On 16 February 2018 3:04 PM, Sam Lanfranco [](mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote: >> >>> Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments. You have hit both points, (a) we have to conduct a critical due diligence on the overall pattern of ICANN spending, looking at effectiveness and efficiency, and (b) we have to look at the (admittedly tiny) slice of the ICANN budget going to NCSG similarly in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. We should have no problems with efficiency since the NCSG crowd engages with near zero perks above basic expenses. We should do more in documenting effectiveness. That needs to go beyond how many people showed up for something, but what were the subsequent outcomes and follow up. Even little things like an NCSG Nano-Mentoring Initiative, where at a CROPP event one or two attendees are identified for some one-on-one informal mentoring around ICANN engagement, and followed up with for 3-4 months in ways that may draw them, or others, into engagement with policy processes. That would up the outcomes from CROPP. >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> On 2/16/2018 4:05 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Sam, I found this very useful. >>>> >>>> I don't believe that community travel is a large expense for ICANN; relative to staff travel, it is nothing. ICANN flew 220+ staff to Abu Dhabi, and gave the NCSG and NCUC three travel slots each. Yes, others have alternative funding, be that through the Council, Review Teams, Onboarding, or Fellowships, but this support is not extensive. >>>> >>>> The real cost base at ICANN is not us - it's personnel costs, consultants, external counsel, and other "professional services", leasing office space, and staff travel to an array of irrelevant events. So when we fight for our five CROP slots to be retained, I hope we can make it clear that we understand the need for fiscal prudence and believe ICANN should only be funding activities related to its core mission. CROP is; those expensive Boston Consulting Group papers (which a former Board member described on Facebook as being "recycled" over and over again, so why does ICANN keep buying them?) and other spend are not... >>>> >>>> That said, I think you're right that cuts are going to continue coming our way, so the time is now for us to start 'boosting our defences' and get out there fundraising, boosting our own Reserve Fund, and perhaps becoming enough of a legal entity to be able to do all that... >>>> >>>> Also - your note about the org's dissatisfaction with the PDP model reminds me that we (NCSG) haven't sent any feedback in on the staff whitepaper on this topic (the one drafted by Emily and Marika that could spell an end to bottom-up, end-user participation at ICANN). We should probably add that to the long list of statements we need to draft urgently... >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> On 16 February 2018 1:37 AM, Sam Lanfranco [](mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ayden, et. al., >>>>> >>>>> The gist of my comments on Skype (reproduced below) are that ICANN is probably at an inflection point on its revenue growth curve, and the budgets will get tighter going forward. There are diminishing returns from new gTLDs, when they come, there are social media options to registering domain names, both for persons and entities, and there are likely to be new technologies for Registrars to do their work. The prospects for a Distributed Ledger Technology (think blockchain 3.0 or Tangle 4.0 - i.e., down the road) will likely reduce the earned fees from existing domain name registrations. READ: ICANN's budget will shrink, hence my analogy of ICANN going from a Plum to a Prune. >>>>> >>>>> This means that NCSG (& NCUC/NPOC) have to seriously look inward and assess the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the ICANN expenditures they account for. Xavier and crew have gone a considerable distance in giving us the granularity of budget expenses we asked for, to aid us in decision making. While we can mount arguments for why CROPP needs to be retained, we are implicitly (with silence) saying that everything else needs to be retained (mainly with regard to travel and accommodations - the big budget items). >>>>> >>>>> It is my assessment that a "no shrinkage" strategy with regard to the NCSG entitlement is a "no go", and that budget cuts will come with or without consultation. This may take a couple of years to roll out, but the NCSG & Co future will be will less ICANN funding. We can either think through how we adjust to that, we can start to look for other funding, or we can do both. What we cannot do, for much longer, is just insist on the status quo based simply on the notion that we we do is a good idea and in the Public Interest. >>>>> >>>>> At the same time, we are hearing more and more about how ICANN the org, and ICANN the board are not happy with the dynamics and the progress of the ICANN pdp-wg model. We should anticipate, and help shape, changes there. Those of you meeting in Puerto Rico should be spending considerable time on how NCSG deals with these issues (or show that I have it wrong) and spend less time in a dance that makes it look like we are trying to hold the Board and ICANN org more accountable. >>>>> >>>>> Sam L >>>>> >>>>> [Skype posting] By the last time I was able to attend an ICANN meeting (ICANN58: Copenhagen) Xavier had discussed greater budget granularity with NCSG and pledged to improve access and transparency. We may quibble on how much we now have, and how far ICANN has gone in improved granularity, but it is important to recognize that Xavier has gone a great distance in honoring that pledge. >>>>> >>>>> That budget lines are under threat should come as no surprise as ICANN faces tighter revenues, and as ICANN goes forward both with a bit of belt tightening, and (not surprisingly) some reflection and reviews around how it carries out its work. >>>>> >>>>> I, as an outsider with no inside information, suspect that ICANN will have to undergo a bit of organizational restructuring in the service of its remit and do so within tightening budget constraints. While NCSG, and NCUC & NPOC, concern themselves with the short run future of CROPP, we should be thinking about structural changes that may even impact on our respective charters. At least that is my read from the outer seats in the stadium. >>>>> >>>>> On 2/15/2018 7:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >>>>> in an unjust state" -Confucius >>>>> ??????????????????????? >>>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China >>>>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >>>>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >>>>> email: >>>>> Lanfran at Yorku.ca >>>>> Skype: slanfranco >>>>> blog: >>>>> https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >>>>> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >>> in an unjust state" -Confucius >>> ??????????????????????? >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China >>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >>> email: >>> Lanfran at Yorku.ca >>> Skype: slanfranco >>> blog: >>> https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >>> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ??????????????????????? > ------------------------------------------------ > Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > email: > Lanfran at Yorku.ca > Skype: slanfranco > blog: > https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Fri Feb 16 18:18:37 2018 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:18:37 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: <74F67937-A810-4FDD-8F5A-EE69E3BE9FB7@davecake.net> References: <74F67937-A810-4FDD-8F5A-EE69E3BE9FB7@davecake.net> Message-ID: (observer) Hi, Re finding consensus on a candidate: Isn't this what has has happened every time after going through a long voting process and failing. Seems reasonable to just get this step out of the way as the next step after collecting names, reading statements and doing interviews. And it is less divisive then candidates getting a majority but never the supermajority (8) required. Since they most always vote in a block, an NCSG candidate cannot win unless they agree in the first place.? All NCSG voters can do, assuming NCSG sticks with non block voting is to decide to accept their candidate or not.? And if NCSG votes in? block, it insures a deadlock. It has always come down to negotiation among the leadership, so it might make sense to just formalize that step as an early step. avri On 16-Feb-18 00:36, David Cake wrote: > The only problem with the procedure is that it takes the really > difficult parts of the process, and turns it into ?seek consensus?, > which practically may need a lot more detail. Though some of that > detail may be more useful to do ad hoc depending on number of > interested candidates etc, and there probably really is no useful way > to make consensus easier to find purely through process, and it?s > valuable to make it very clear tha5 consensus is required. > > ?Also, while full consensus is clearly ideal, should probably be > ?rough consensus?, we need a clear 8+ votes not unanimity (we don?t > want to allow any single councillor to derail the process). But I > thoroughly agree that seeking rough consensus between the SGs before > the ballot is the only practical functional process.? > Running against NOTA serves as a useful check on attempts to game > negotiations, and is needed for formality.? > > David > > Sent from my iPad > > On 13 Feb 2018, at 7:49 am, farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple >> candidates if I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on >> past experience (3 elections and some of them reached deadlocks, >> Rafik can elaborate) having multiple candidates to vote on is not in >> the interest of NCSG. What worked well for NCSG and CSG? in previous >> elections is to discuss until they come up with one consensus >> candidate to vote on.?? >> >> As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the >> last Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common >> practice in GNSO elections. >> Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA >> . 13 to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA >> plays a tie-breaker here]. >> >> Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election >> with one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in >> the past and it is needed for formality and procedural matter.? >> >> If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the >> election, he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there >> certainly is a problem and it makes sense to? re-start the process to >> solve that between the 2 groups. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh? >> >> (this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's >> response below.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer > > wrote: >> >> I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even >> commented on my earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer. >> >> Questions on your proposal: >> >> 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier? >> 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning? >> 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and >> interviewers will be from both SGs? >> >> NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus >> candidate to run for the election. >> >> >> 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only >> candidate and then it would not make sense to have elections >> anymore. I think you meant that both SGs decide on their best >> candidate but what would then be the consensus candidate of the NCA? >> >> I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be >> relatively hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it >> doesn't happen, the whole thing is restarted god knows how many >> times. >> >> For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal: >> >> /Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only >> the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. In >> case the first round results in a tie of three or more >> candidates, the SG that has two or more candidates has to choose >> one for the second round. Both SGs would have one candidate each >> on the second round, despite the results in the first round. >> >> / >> /Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that >> all the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead >> of just their own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the >> opinion of all the NCPH councilors on the prospective candidates >> through votes, instead of trying to guess which of the SG's >> candidates would go through better. >> >> / >> /Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer >> pressure from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of >> candidates for the first round can not exceed the amount of GNSO >> councilors in the SG. / >> >> -Raoul >> >> On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC >> > wrote: >> >> We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple >> and based on our past experience. Rafik and I came up with >> this procedure to propose to the small group which we decided >> to convene during the intersessional. We want to kick start >> that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let me >> know before that. Note that you can still send your comments >> when we have started the group, we can consider them when >> discussing with the drafting team. we will meet in PR to >> finalize this.? >> >> The procedure is attached.? >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 11:41:06 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:41:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing the draft agenda for our next policy call. you can suggest some items for discussion I. Roll call/Introduction II. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-22feb18-en.pdf III. Policy Update - Planning public comments responses: https://www.icann.org/public- comments#open-public & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/disp lay/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 - Policy topics: * Update from working groups, review teams. IV. Misc - GDPR Compliance models follow-up - ICANN FY19 budget comment - NCPH intersessional & GNSO council strategical meeting Reporting - Preparation for Puerto Rico Meeting Best Regards, Rafik Dammak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Feb 18 18:49:48 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:49:48 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] onboarding programme not in FY19 Budget Message-ID: Hi, all- I have confirmed with Ergys Ramaj that the onboarding programme is wrapping up at the end of FY18, and is not budgeted to be supported in FY19. I think the staff rationale for terminating the programme is sound, but thought I'd flag it, as it is another instance of community support being lost in this budget with no prior community notification. What I propose is that we note in our Budget comment our disappointment that another community resource is being lost and ask if the savings generated can be put towards the Additional Budgetary Request envelope that shrunk by roughly 60%. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts here. Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Feb 18 20:10:01 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:10:01 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Subsequent Rounds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts on this please? Please can you communicate your support/concerns ASAP and preferably before the SCBO call tomorrow. Thank you, Ayden ? -------- Original Message -------- On 18 February 2018 6:51 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > >All > > ?While the various stakeholder groups might include this in their own comments I thought it worthwhile raising this topic here as well. > As we all know there currently is a large and active PDP on Subsequent Rounds of new TLDs. > However as was raised with me the budget does not seem to fully reflect this ie. no monies appear to have been earmarked should that PDP reach its conclusion and a next round be announced. > > Jeff Neuman shared the below with me and others and I am sharing it here with his permission: > > "there is nothing in the next ICANN proposed budget that accounts for development or resources towards the next round of New gTLDs. If we want the ?next round? to begin in 2020, then surely the FY 2019 Budget which contains the initiatives for ICANN from July 2018 through June 2019 MUST contain some funds to start the prep work. In fact, for the 2012 Round, the budgeting for that round began in FY 2008. The reason it began in FY 2008 (prepared during FY 2007) is because it was originally assumed that that the opening of the round would be in FY 2010 (or late 2009). That was the assumption because they knew they would get the GNSO?s final report in at the end of FY 2008. See https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/adopted-budget-2007-06-29-en#_Toc170817093. " > > Jeff indicates that the PDP would probably be done before the end of FY19 so the lack of budgeted resources naturally concerns him. > > Regards > > Michele > > > >Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains >https://www.blacknight.com >https://blacknight.blog / >http://ceo.hosting/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265 > ,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > >Gnso-sc-budget mailing list >Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-sc-budget > From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 01:02:53 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:02:53 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] onboarding programme not in FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I thought that onboarding programme is limited in time and so it would make sense that finishes at some time, that would also encourage everyone to deliver. but I take your point about the absence of notice regarding the termination of the programs, that should be made more clearly and no necessitating digging in the budget. I think we can add the comment about the transparency regarding initiation and termination of projects/resources and giving rational for that. Best, Rafik 2018-02-19 1:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi, all- > > I have confirmed with Ergys Ramaj that the onboarding programme is > wrapping up at the end of FY18, and is not budgeted to be supported in > FY19. I think the staff rationale for terminating the programme is sound, > but thought I'd flag it, as it is another instance of community support > being lost in this budget with no prior community notification. > > What I propose is that we note in our Budget comment our disappointment > that another community resource is being lost and ask if the savings > generated can be put towards the Additional Budgetary Request envelope that > shrunk by roughly 60%. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts here. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 01:08:52 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:08:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Subsequent Rounds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, That is a valid point. there should be budgeting for the implementation at the same level and in particular since this is one of the core areas for ICANN. I would also ask about the budget for ws2 implementation. all these are impacting ICANN for long-term and so should be consequently budgeted. I will try to attend the call but I am an observer only. Best, Rafik 2018-02-19 3:10 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi, > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this please? Please can you communicate > your support/concerns ASAP and preferably before the SCBO call tomorrow. > > Thank you, > > Ayden > ? > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 18 February 2018 6:51 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < > michele at blacknight.com> wrote: > > > > >All > > > > ?While the various stakeholder groups might include this in their own > comments I thought it worthwhile raising this topic here as well. > > As we all know there currently is a large and active PDP on Subsequent > Rounds of new TLDs. > > However as was raised with me the budget does not seem to fully reflect > this ie. no monies appear to have been earmarked should that PDP reach its > conclusion and a next round be announced. > > > > Jeff Neuman shared the below with me and others and I am sharing it here > with his permission: > > > > "there is nothing in the next ICANN proposed budget that accounts for > development or resources towards the next round of New gTLDs. If we want > the ?next round? to begin in 2020, then surely the FY 2019 Budget which > contains the initiatives for ICANN from July 2018 through June 2019 MUST > contain some funds to start the prep work. In fact, for the 2012 Round, > the budgeting for that round began in FY 2008. The reason it began in FY > 2008 (prepared during FY 2007) is because it was originally assumed that > that the opening of the round would be in FY 2010 (or late 2009). That was > the assumption because they knew they would get the GNSO?s final report in > at the end of FY 2008. See https://www.icann.org/ > resources/unthemed-pages/adopted-budget-2007-06-29-en#_Toc170817093. " > > > > Jeff indicates that the PDP would probably be done before the end of > FY19 so the lack of budgeted resources naturally concerns him. > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > > > > > > >Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > >https://www.blacknight.com > >https://blacknight.blog / > >http://ceo.hosting/ > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > > >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265 > > ,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > >Gnso-sc-budget mailing list > >Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-sc-budget > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 19 01:33:34 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:33:34 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] onboarding programme not in FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik- That is exactly what I'm suggesting. I think the onboarding programme has achieved its goals (or at least the goals that were in place when I first joined the programme), and it's okay to wrap it up. It was never meant to exist for eternity; the idea was always that travel funding would be a temporary carrot, and in exchange for the travel, the participants needed to create a set of evergreen materials that would allow newcomers to be onboarded without the travel resource. So I am not suggesting a change here. But the process question has to be raised... it would have been nice to know that the pilot was being discontinued and that staff had assessed it as having achieved its original objective. We need to know what we're missing out on. That should be easy to spot in the Budget; we shouldn't be needing to compare the FY18 and FY19 Budget documents alongside one another to work out what was disappeared... However, with the disappearance of this resource goes away 4-5 NCSG travel slots per meeting - slots being used by Louise, Dina, Agustina, and Oreoluwa (and sometimes Kathy). That's not a good outcome for us... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 19 February 2018 12:02 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I thought that onboarding programme is limited in time and so it would make sense that finishes at some time, that would also encourage everyone to deliver. > but I take your point about the absence of notice regarding the termination of the programs, that should be made more clearly and no necessitating digging in the budget. > I think we can add the comment about the transparency regarding initiation and termination of projects/resources and giving rational for that. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-19 1:49 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Hi, all- >> >> I have confirmed with Ergys Ramaj that the onboarding programme is wrapping up at the end of FY18, and is not budgeted to be supported in FY19. I think the staff rationale for terminating the programme is sound, but thought I'd flag it, as it is another instance of community support being lost in this budget with no prior community notification. >> >> What I propose is that we note in our Budget comment our disappointment that another community resource is being lost and ask if the savings generated can be put towards the Additional Budgetary Request envelope that shrunk by roughly 60%. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts here. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 19 12:15:19 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:15:19 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] [v0.4] Latest draft of our comment on the FY19 Budget In-Reply-To: References: <20180217140906.c252558c5e86a23dd94fd87d8a7f7f50.57d4741ce0.mailapi@email12.godaddy.com> Message-ID: The file that Erika shared below is an interesting read; I will be sure to cite this in our (NCSG) comment on the Budget in support of not touching the action proceeds to replenish the Reserve Fund. Perhaps others have read it already but just thought I'd share it if not - I hadn't seen it before. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 17 February 2018 11:09 PM, Erika Mann wrote: > Ayden - > > let me add another aspect in relation to the question whether Auction Proceed money can be used for the Reserve fund. It probably can be but it needs extremely careful legal and political considerations. > > ICANN's argument for the use of Auction Proceed related money in the Ruby Glen LLC appeal (.web) is limiting the use of the fund for internal operational purposes to a large degree. I recommend to review in particular page 16/17 > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-icann-answering-brief-30oct17-en.pdf > > Cheers, > Erika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sam at lanfranco.net Fri Feb 16 02:40:58 2018 From: sam at lanfranco.net (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:40:58 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <800200c0-2a33-7308-696b-d2e4efe7374b@lanfranco.net> Ayden, et. al., The gist of my comments on Skype (reproduced below) are that ICANN is probably at an inflection point on its revenue growth curve, and the budgets will get tighter going forward. There are diminishing returns from new gTLDs, when they come, there are social media options to registering domain names, both for persons and entities, and there are likely to be new technologies for Registrars to do their work. The prospects for a Distributed Ledger Technology (think blockchain 3.0 or Tangle 4.0 - i.e., down the road) will likely reduce the earned fees from existing domain name registrations. READ: ICANN's budget will shrink, hence my analogy of ICANN going from a Plum to a Prune. This means that NCSG (& NCUC/NPOC) have to seriously look inward and assess the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the ICANN expenditures they account for. Xavier and crew have gone a considerable distance in giving us the granularity of budget expenses we asked for, to aid us in decision making. While we can mount arguments for why CROPP needs to be retained, we are implicitly (with silence) saying that everything else needs to be retained (mainly with regard to travel and accommodations - the big budget items). It is my assessment that a "no shrinkage" strategy with regard to the NCSG entitlement is a "no go", and that budget cuts will come with or without consultation.? This may take a couple of years to roll out, but the NCSG & Co future will be will less ICANN funding. We can either think through how we adjust to that, we can start to look for other funding, or we can do both. What we cannot do, for much longer, is just insist on the status quo based simply on the notion that we we do is a good idea and in the Public Interest. At the same time, we are hearing more and more about how ICANN the org, and ICANN the board are not happy with the dynamics and the progress of the ICANN pdp-wg model. We should anticipate, and help shape, changes there. Those of you meeting in Puerto Rico should be spending considerable time on how NCSG deals with these issues (or show that I have it wrong) and spend less time in a dance that makes it look like we are trying to hold the Board and ICANN org more accountable. Sam L /[*Skype posting*] By the last time I was able to attend an ICANN meeting (ICANN58: Copenhagen) Xavier had discussed greater budget granularity with NCSG and pledged to improve access and transparency. We may quibble on how much we now have, and how far ICANN has gone in improved granularity, but it is important to recognize that Xavier has gone a great distance in honoring that pledge. // // //That budget lines are under threat should come as no surprise as ICANN faces tighter revenues, and as ICANN goes forward both with a bit of belt tightening, and (not surprisingly) some reflection and reviews around how it carries out its work. // // //I, as an outsider with no inside information, suspect that ICANN will have to undergo a bit of organizational restructuring in the service of its remit and do so within tightening budget constraints.? While NCSG, and NCUC & NPOC, concern themselves with the short run future of CROPP, we should be thinking about structural changes that may even impact on our respective charters. At least that is my read from the outer seats in the stadium. / On 2/15/2018 7:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what > suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we > really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to > table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the > expected standard of behaviour for our officers and members, along > with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what that could mean for > us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, insinuated as much in > our Reserve Fund comment, and called for cuts to spending, but we > haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... We are > very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent with our > allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] could pay a > heavy price.*/I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this topic > yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd > like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, > and/or expand upon his prediction./*.. I'd certainly like to hear more > about the 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 > months... > > Ayden > > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ??????????????????????? ------------------------------------------------ Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email:Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog:https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran at yorku.ca Fri Feb 16 16:04:46 2018 From: lanfran at yorku.ca (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:04:46 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Ayden, Thanks for your comments. You have hit both points, (a) we have to conduct a critical due diligence on the overall pattern of ICANN spending, looking at effectiveness and efficiency, and (b) we have to look at the (admittedly tiny) slice of the ICANN budget going to NCSG similarly in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. We should have no problems with efficiency since the NCSG crowd engages with near zero perks above basic expenses. We should do more in documenting effectiveness. That needs to go beyond how many people showed up for something, but what were the subsequent outcomes and follow up. Even little things like an NCSG Nano-Mentoring Initiative, where at a CROPP event one or two attendees are identified for some one-on-one informal mentoring around ICANN engagement, and followed up with for 3-4 months in ways that may draw them, or others, into engagement with policy processes. That would up the outcomes from CROPP. Sam On 2/16/2018 4:05 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks, Sam, I found this very useful. > > I don't believe that community travel is a large expense for ICANN; > relative to staff travel, it is nothing. ICANN flew 220+ staff to Abu > Dhabi, and gave the NCSG and NCUC three travel slots each. Yes, others > have alternative funding, be that through the Council, Review Teams, > Onboarding, or Fellowships, but this support is not extensive. > > The real cost base at ICANN is not us - it's personnel costs, > consultants, external counsel, and other "professional services", > leasing office space, and staff travel to an array of irrelevant > events. So when we fight for our five CROP slots to be retained, I > hope we can make it clear that we understand the need for fiscal > prudence and believe ICANN should only be funding activities related > to its core mission. CROP is; those expensive Boston Consulting Group > papers (which a former Board member described on Facebook as being > "recycled" over and over again, so why does ICANN keep buying them?) > and other spend are not... > > That said, I think you're right that cuts are going to continue coming > our way, so the time is now for us to start 'boosting our defences' > and get out there fundraising, boosting our own Reserve Fund, and > perhaps becoming enough of a legal entity to be able to do all that... > > Also - your note about the org's dissatisfaction with the PDP model > reminds me that we (NCSG) haven't sent any feedback in on the staff > whitepaper on this topic (the one drafted by Emily and Marika that > could spell an end to bottom-up, end-user participation at ICANN). We > should probably add that to the long list of statements we need to > draft urgently... > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 16 February 2018 1:37 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > >> Ayden, et. al., >> >> The gist of my comments on Skype (reproduced below) are that ICANN is >> probably at an inflection point on its revenue growth curve, and the >> budgets will get tighter going forward. There are diminishing returns >> from new gTLDs, when they come, there are social media options to >> registering domain names, both for persons and entities, and there >> are likely to be new technologies for Registrars to do their work. >> The prospects for a Distributed Ledger Technology (think blockchain >> 3.0 or Tangle 4.0 - i.e., down the road) will likely reduce the >> earned fees from existing domain name registrations. READ: ICANN's >> budget will shrink, hence my analogy of ICANN going from a Plum to a >> Prune. >> >> This means that NCSG (& NCUC/NPOC) have to seriously look inward and >> assess the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the ICANN >> expenditures they account for. Xavier and crew have gone a >> considerable distance in giving us the granularity of budget expenses >> we asked for, to aid us in decision making. While we can mount >> arguments for why CROPP needs to be retained, we are implicitly (with >> silence) saying that everything else needs to be retained (mainly >> with regard to travel and accommodations - the big budget items). >> >> It is my assessment that a "no shrinkage" strategy with regard to the >> NCSG entitlement is a "no go", and that budget cuts will come with or >> without consultation.? This may take a couple of years to roll out, >> but the NCSG & Co future will be will less ICANN funding. We can >> either think through how we adjust to that, we can start to look for >> other funding, or we can do both. What we cannot do, for much longer, >> is just insist on the status quo based simply on the notion that we >> we do is a good idea and in the Public Interest. >> >> At the same time, we are hearing more and more about how ICANN the >> org, and ICANN the board are not happy with the dynamics and the >> progress of the ICANN pdp-wg model. We should anticipate, and help >> shape, changes there. Those of you meeting in Puerto Rico should be >> spending considerable time on how NCSG deals with these issues (or >> show that I have it wrong) and spend less time in a dance that makes >> it look like we are trying to hold the Board and ICANN org more >> accountable. >> >> Sam L >> >> /[*Skype posting*] By the last time I was able to attend an ICANN >> meeting (ICANN58: Copenhagen) Xavier had discussed greater budget >> granularity with NCSG and pledged to improve access and transparency. >> We may quibble on how much we now have, and how far ICANN has gone in >> improved granularity, but it is important to recognize that Xavier >> has gone a great distance in honoring that pledge. // >> // >> //That budget lines are under threat should come as no surprise as >> ICANN faces tighter revenues, and as ICANN goes forward both with a >> bit of belt tightening, and (not surprisingly) some reflection and >> reviews around how it carries out its work. // >> // >> //I, as an outsider with no inside information, suspect that ICANN >> will have to undergo a bit of organizational restructuring in the >> service of its remit and do so within tightening budget constraints.? >> While NCSG, and NCUC & NPOC, concern themselves with the short run >> future of CROPP, we should be thinking about structural changes that >> may even impact on our respective charters. At least that is my read >> from the outer seats in the stadium. / >> >> >> On 2/15/2018 7:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear >>> what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something >>> we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able >>> to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about >>> the expected standard of behaviour for our officers and members, >>> along with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what that could >>> mean for us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, insinuated as >>> much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called for cuts to spending, >>> but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... >>> We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent >>> with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] >>> could pay a heavy price.*/I think Sam made a very insightful comment >>> on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this >>> discussion in case he'd like to paste his message here for other >>> list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon his prediction./*.. I'd >>> certainly like to hear more about the 'red flags' we should be >>> looking out for over the coming 12 months... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------ >> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >> in an unjust state" -Confucius >> ??????????????????????? >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China >> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >> email:Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco >> blog:https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ??????????????????????? ------------------------------------------------ Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lanfran at yorku.ca Fri Feb 16 17:12:06 2018 From: lanfran at yorku.ca (Sam Lanfranco) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:12:06 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61 In-Reply-To: References: <3109f3db-8757-c572-df4a-c832024e389e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <9d7bf426-4694-4773-d1e5-67841bcac866@yorku.ca> Ayden, I might add that Nano-Mentoring needs no additional resources, no organizational structures, and is a bit what a number of us have done in any event. This just Brands it, and tracks it a bit to record it as an NCSG deliverable from ICANN sponsored activities. Past discussions around more formal mentoring programs got bogged down in turf creep and budget issues. Sam On 2/16/2018 9:24 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Excellent ideas, Sam. Thanks for sharing these. > > I'm happy to 'pilot' the?NCSG Nano-Mentoring Initiative at the > Internet Freedom Festival in Valencia next month, which I am > participating in with the support of CROP. Happy to touch base with > our members on the ground - Dina, Bonface, Olga, Rafael, Joana, and > there might be others - to see if we can make this work. This would be > a good outcome to highlight in the the CROP post-trip report that I am > required to submit to ICANN org. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 16 February 2018 3:04 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > >> Ayden, >> >> Thanks for your comments. You have hit both points, (a) we have to >> conduct a critical due diligence on the overall pattern of ICANN >> spending, looking at effectiveness and efficiency, and (b) we have to >> look at the (admittedly tiny) slice of the ICANN budget going to NCSG >> similarly in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. We should have no >> problems with efficiency since the NCSG crowd engages with near zero >> perks above basic expenses. We should do more in documenting >> effectiveness. That needs to go beyond how? many people showed up for >> something, but what were the subsequent outcomes and follow up. Even >> little things like an NCSG Nano-Mentoring Initiative, where at a >> CROPP event one or two attendees are identified for some one-on-one >> informal mentoring around ICANN engagement, and followed up with for >> 3-4 months in ways that may draw them, or others, into engagement >> with policy processes. That would up the outcomes from CROPP. >> >> Sam >> >> >> On 2/16/2018 4:05 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> Thanks, Sam, I found this very useful. >>> >>> I don't believe that community travel is a large expense for ICANN; >>> relative to staff travel, it is nothing. ICANN flew 220+ staff to >>> Abu Dhabi, and gave the NCSG and NCUC three travel slots each. Yes, >>> others have alternative funding, be that through the Council, Review >>> Teams, Onboarding, or Fellowships, but this support is not extensive. >>> >>> The real cost base at ICANN is not us - it's personnel costs, >>> consultants, external counsel, and other "professional services", >>> leasing office space, and staff travel to an array of irrelevant >>> events. So when we fight for our five CROP slots to be retained, I >>> hope we can make it clear that we understand the need for fiscal >>> prudence and believe ICANN should only be funding activities related >>> to its core mission. CROP is; those expensive Boston Consulting >>> Group papers (which a former Board member described on Facebook as >>> being "recycled" over and over again, so why does ICANN keep buying >>> them?) and other spend are not... >>> >>> That said, I think you're right that cuts are going to continue >>> coming our way, so the time is now for us to start 'boosting our >>> defences' and get out there fundraising, boosting our own Reserve >>> Fund, and perhaps becoming enough of a legal entity to be able to do >>> all that... >>> >>> Also - your note about the org's dissatisfaction with the PDP model >>> reminds me that we (NCSG) haven't sent any feedback in on the staff >>> whitepaper on this topic (the one drafted by Emily and Marika that >>> could spell an end to bottom-up, end-user participation at ICANN). >>> We should probably add that to the long list of statements we need >>> to draft urgently... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On 16 February 2018 1:37 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> >>>> Ayden, et. al., >>>> >>>> The gist of my comments on Skype (reproduced below) are that ICANN >>>> is probably at an inflection point on its revenue growth curve, and >>>> the budgets will get tighter going forward. There are diminishing >>>> returns from new gTLDs, when they come, there are social media >>>> options to registering domain names, both for persons and entities, >>>> and there are likely to be new technologies for Registrars to do >>>> their work. The prospects for a Distributed Ledger Technology >>>> (think blockchain 3.0 or Tangle 4.0 - i.e., down the road) will >>>> likely reduce the earned fees from existing domain name >>>> registrations. READ: ICANN's budget will shrink, hence my analogy >>>> of ICANN going from a Plum to a Prune. >>>> >>>> This means that NCSG (& NCUC/NPOC) have to seriously look inward >>>> and assess the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the ICANN >>>> expenditures they account for. Xavier and crew have gone a >>>> considerable distance in giving us the granularity of budget >>>> expenses we asked for, to aid us in decision making. While we can >>>> mount arguments for why CROPP needs to be retained, we are >>>> implicitly (with silence) saying that everything else needs to be >>>> retained (mainly with regard to travel and accommodations - the big >>>> budget items). >>>> >>>> It is my assessment that a "no shrinkage" strategy with regard to >>>> the NCSG entitlement is a "no go", and that budget cuts will come >>>> with or without consultation.? This may take a couple of years to >>>> roll out, but the NCSG & Co future will be will less ICANN funding. >>>> We can either think through how we adjust to that, we can start to >>>> look for other funding, or we can do both. What we cannot do, for >>>> much longer, is just insist on the status quo based simply on the >>>> notion that we we do is a good idea and in the Public Interest. >>>> >>>> At the same time, we are hearing more and more about how ICANN the >>>> org, and ICANN the board are not happy with the dynamics and the >>>> progress of the ICANN pdp-wg model. We should anticipate, and help >>>> shape, changes there. Those of you meeting in Puerto Rico should be >>>> spending considerable time on how NCSG deals with these issues (or >>>> show that I have it wrong) and spend less time in a dance that >>>> makes it look like we are trying to hold the Board and ICANN org >>>> more accountable. >>>> >>>> Sam L >>>> >>>> /[*Skype posting*] By the last time I was able to attend an ICANN >>>> meeting (ICANN58: Copenhagen) Xavier had discussed greater budget >>>> granularity with NCSG and pledged to improve access and >>>> transparency. We may quibble on how much we now have, and how far >>>> ICANN has gone in improved granularity, but it is important to >>>> recognize that Xavier has gone a great distance in honoring that >>>> pledge. >>>> >>>> That budget lines are under threat should come as no surprise as >>>> ICANN faces tighter revenues, and as ICANN goes forward both with a >>>> bit of belt tightening, and (not surprisingly) some reflection and >>>> reviews around how it carries out its work. >>>> >>>> I, as an outsider with no inside information, suspect that ICANN >>>> will have to undergo a bit of organizational restructuring in the >>>> service of its remit and do so within tightening budget >>>> constraints.? While NCSG, and NCUC & NPOC, concern themselves with >>>> the short run future of CROPP, we should be thinking about >>>> structural changes that may even impact on our respective charters. >>>> At least that is my read from the outer seats in the stadium./ >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/15/2018 7:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear >>>>> what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something >>>>> we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be >>>>> able to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk >>>>> about the expected standard of behaviour for our officers and >>>>> members, along with the trajectory ICANN is moving in and what >>>>> that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was broke last year, >>>>> insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called for >>>>> cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently >>>>> from these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and >>>>> if we are not prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we >>>>> [non-commercial voices] could pay a heavy price.*/I think Sam made >>>>> a very insightful comment on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm >>>>> cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd like to paste his >>>>> message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon >>>>> his prediction./*.. I'd certainly like to hear more about the 'red >>>>> flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months... >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >>>> in an unjust state" -Confucius >>>> ??????????????????????? >>>> ------------------------------------------------ >>>> Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China >>>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >>>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >>>> email:Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco >>>> blog:https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >>>> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------ >> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured >> in an unjust state" -Confucius >> ??????????????????????? >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China >> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) >> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 >> email:Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco >> blog:https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com >> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ??????????????????????? ------------------------------------------------ Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drive-shares-noreply at google.com Mon Feb 19 14:43:37 2018 From: drive-shares-noreply at google.com (Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs)) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:43:37 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Procedure for Community gTLD Change Requests - NCSG Comment References: Message-ID: <001a114065bcf8ff3a0565900a07@google.com> I've shared an item with you: Draft Procedure for Community gTLD Change Requests - NCSG Comment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wy5bMfvEvLA-FU2Ir4zd1Hhgo78XbDjROrCmmmfQgE0/edit?usp=sharing&ts=5a8ac679 It's not an attachment ? it's stored online. To open this item, just click the link above. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Feb 19 15:47:21 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:47:21 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] Subsequent Rounds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think he raises an excellent point.? This is policy? decision-making by budget allocation, in my view. Stephanie On 2018-02-18 13:10, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this please? Please can you communicate your support/concerns ASAP and preferably before the SCBO call tomorrow. > > Thank you, > > Ayden > ? > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 18 February 2018 6:51 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > >> All >> >> ?While the various stakeholder groups might include this in their own comments I thought it worthwhile raising this topic here as well. >> As we all know there currently is a large and active PDP on Subsequent Rounds of new TLDs. >> However as was raised with me the budget does not seem to fully reflect this ie. no monies appear to have been earmarked should that PDP reach its conclusion and a next round be announced. >> >> Jeff Neuman shared the below with me and others and I am sharing it here with his permission: >> >> "there is nothing in the next ICANN proposed budget that accounts for development or resources towards the next round of New gTLDs. If we want the ?next round? to begin in 2020, then surely the FY 2019 Budget which contains the initiatives for ICANN from July 2018 through June 2019 MUST contain some funds to start the prep work. In fact, for the 2012 Round, the budgeting for that round began in FY 2008. The reason it began in FY 2008 (prepared during FY 2007) is because it was originally assumed that that the opening of the round would be in FY 2010 (or late 2009). That was the assumption because they knew they would get the GNSO?s final report in at the end of FY 2008. See https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/adopted-budget-2007-06-29-en#_Toc170817093." >> >> Jeff indicates that the PDP would probably be done before the end of FY19 so the lack of budgeted resources naturally concerns him. >> >> Regards >> >> Michele >> >> >> >> Mr Michele Neylon >> Blacknight Solutions >> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >> https://www.blacknight.com >> https://blacknight.blog / >> http://ceo.hosting/ >> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >> >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265 >> ,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> >> >> Gnso-sc-budget mailing list >> Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-sc-budget >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 19 23:19:16 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:19:16 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GAC/NCSG Meeting/ Please approve by tomorrow Message-ID: Here is the agenda I have in mind for the 30 minute chat we have with GAC. Agenda of NCSG meeting with GAC: - Background on NCSG, our values and convergence of our values with GAC - Rights Protection Mechanisms ( FoE perspective) - Privacy - Wrap up Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 19 23:31:22 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:31:22 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GAC/NCSG Meeting/ Please approve by tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for working on this, Farzaneh - it looks good to me. I might just suggest bumping privacy up one spot on the agenda. Best wishes Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 19 February 2018 10:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Here is the agenda I have in mind for the 30 minute chat we have with GAC. > > Agenda of NCSG meeting with GAC: > > - Background on NCSG, our values and convergence of our values with GAC > > - Rights Protection Mechanisms ( FoE perspective) > > - Privacy > > - Wrap up > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 23:38:36 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:38:36 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GAC/NCSG Meeting/ Please approve by tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great! No idea if it is a subject already addresse, or if it is even smart to do so, but I would also mention how gac can participate in the wg of pdp instead of trying to overrun the gnso council at board level. Making it clear that there is a process and a hierarchy for gTLDs policy and is called gnso. Cheers, Martin On 19 Feb 2018 6:31 pm, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > Thanks for working on this, Farzaneh - it looks good to me. > > I might just suggest bumping privacy up one spot on the agenda. > > Best wishes > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 19 February 2018 10:19 PM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Here is the agenda I have in mind for the 30 minute chat we have with GAC. > > Agenda of NCSG meeting with GAC: > > - Background on NCSG, our values and convergence of our values with GAC > > - Rights Protection Mechanisms ( FoE perspective) > > - Privacy > > - Wrap up > > 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 Mon Feb 19 23:46:11 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:46:11 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GAC/NCSG Meeting/ Please approve by tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can see it now.....Kavouss on the RDS pdp. SP On 2018-02-19 16:38, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Great! No idea if it is a subject already addresse, or if it is even > smart to do so, but I would also mention how gac can participate in > the wg of pdp instead of trying to overrun the gnso council at board > level. Making it clear that there is a process and a hierarchy for > gTLDs policy and is called gnso. > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 19 Feb 2018 6:31 pm, "Ayden F?rdeline" > wrote: > > Thanks for working on this, Farzaneh - it looks good to me. > > I might just suggest bumping privacy up one spot on the agenda. > > Best wishes > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 19 February 2018 10:19 PM, farzaneh badii > > wrote: > >> Here is the agenda I have in mind for the 30 minute chat we have >> with GAC. >> >> Agenda of NCSG meeting with GAC: >> >> - Background on NCSG, our values and convergence of our values >> with GAC >> >> - Rights Protection Mechanisms ( FoE perspective) >> >> - Privacy >> >> - Wrap up >> >> 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 Mon Feb 19 23:49:22 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:49:22 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GAC/NCSG Meeting/ Please approve by tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Martin , I think this is something GNSO council reminds GAC about in every engagement, I would think we should focus in few points suggested already since we have short time with them. Best, Rafik On Feb 20, 2018 6:38 AM, "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: Great! No idea if it is a subject already addresse, or if it is even smart to do so, but I would also mention how gac can participate in the wg of pdp instead of trying to overrun the gnso council at board level. Making it clear that there is a process and a hierarchy for gTLDs policy and is called gnso. Cheers, Martin On 19 Feb 2018 6:31 pm, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > Thanks for working on this, Farzaneh - it looks good to me. > > I might just suggest bumping privacy up one spot on the agenda. > > Best wishes > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 19 February 2018 10:19 PM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Here is the agenda I have in mind for the 30 minute chat we have with GAC. > > Agenda of NCSG meeting with GAC: > > - Background on NCSG, our values and convergence of our values with GAC > > - Rights Protection Mechanisms ( FoE perspective) > > - Privacy > > - Wrap up > > 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 icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 20 00:07:23 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:07:23 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] An idea for Panama, ICANN62... Message-ID: I know, it's a long way off... but at ICANN62 in Panama, can we schedule a 3 hour long PC meeting? Just looking over the San Juan schedule and see it's a short one. 90 minutes is never enough time... we'll inevitably run over! ;-) Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 02:07:32 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:07:32 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] An idea for Panama, ICANN62... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, for San Juan, yes it is 90min because that is the slot available for SG/C on Sunday. We cannot get longer because that will clash with GNSO-GAC meeting. I don't know how much slots will be available in Policy Forum for SG/C (likely fewer than San Juan). if there coordination between NCSG, NCUC and NPOC to give priority for meeting to NCSG PC we can have some slots like during CD for most of ICANN meetings. Best, Rafik 2018-02-20 7:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > I know, it's a long way off... but at ICANN62 in Panama, can we schedule a > 3 hour long PC meeting? Just looking over the San Juan schedule and see > it's a short one. 90 minutes is never enough time... we'll inevitably run > over! ;-) > > Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 05:19:19 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:19:19 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Procedure for Community gTLD Change Requests - NCSG Comment In-Reply-To: <001a114065bcf8ff3a0565900a07@google.com> References: <001a114065bcf8ff3a0565900a07@google.com> Message-ID: Hi Poncelet, thanks for sharing the draft. we should read the report and review the comment. I will try to add my edits this week. Best, Rafik 2018-02-19 21:43 GMT+09:00 Poncelet Ileleji (via Google Docs) via NCSG-PC < ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>: > Poncelet Ileleji has shared a link to the following > document: > Draft Procedure for Community gTLD Change Requests - NCSG Comment > > Open in Docs > > Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. > Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA > You have received this email because someone shared a document with you > from Google Docs. [image: Logo for Google Docs] > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plommer at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 22:17:09 2018 From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:17:09 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: <74F67937-A810-4FDD-8F5A-EE69E3BE9FB7@davecake.net> References: <74F67937-A810-4FDD-8F5A-EE69E3BE9FB7@davecake.net> Message-ID: Ok, I totally agree that we need 8+ votes on the particular candidate to avoid NCA having too much power and I did get that from Farzi's explanation. Sorry for being late to answer. Could we use that 1st round with more candidates for seeking that rough consensus before the final round? Make it a more official that way. I think it would create more buzz and consensus reaching than without the second round. In the final round there would be only one candidate from each SG. We could have just one week between the first and second round. -Raoul On 16 February 2018 at 07:36, David Cake wrote: > The only problem with the procedure is that it takes the really difficult > parts of the process, and turns it into ?seek consensus?, which practically > may need a lot more detail. Though some of that detail may be more useful > to do ad hoc depending on number of interested candidates etc, and there > probably really is no useful way to make consensus easier to find purely > through process, and it?s valuable to make it very clear tha5 consensus is > required. > > Also, while full consensus is clearly ideal, should probably be ?rough > consensus?, we need a clear 8+ votes not unanimity (we don?t want to allow > any single councillor to derail the process). But I thoroughly agree that > seeking rough consensus between the SGs before the ballot is the only > practical functional process. > Running against NOTA serves as a useful check on attempts to game > negotiations, and is needed for formality. > > David > > Sent from my iPad > > On 13 Feb 2018, at 7:49 am, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple candidates if > I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on past experience (3 > elections and some of them reached deadlocks, Rafik can elaborate) having > multiple candidates to vote on is not in the interest of NCSG. What worked > well for NCSG and CSG in previous elections is to discuss until they come > up with one consensus candidate to vote on. > > As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the last > Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common practice in GNSO > elections. > Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA . 13 > to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA plays a > tie-breaker here]. > > Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election with > one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in the past and > it is needed for formality and procedural matter. > > If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the election, > he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there certainly is a > problem and it makes sense to re-start the process to solve that between > the 2 groups. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > (this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's response > below.) > > > > > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer wrote: > >> I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even commented on my >> earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer. >> >> Questions on your proposal: >> >> 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier? >> 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning? >> 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and interviewers will >> be from both SGs? >> >> NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus >>> candidate to run for the election. >>> >> >> 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only candidate >> and then it would not make sense to have elections anymore. I think you >> meant that both SGs decide on their best candidate but what would then be >> the consensus candidate of the NCA? >> >> I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be relatively >> hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it doesn't happen, the whole >> thing is restarted god knows how many times. >> >> For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal: >> >> >> >> *Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two >> candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round >> results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more >> candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one >> candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round.* >> >> >> *Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the >> NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own >> stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH >> councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying >> to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better.* >> *Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure >> from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first >> round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. * >> >> -Raoul >> >> On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >>> We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based on >>> our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose to >>> the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. We >>> want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let >>> me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we >>> have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the >>> drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. >>> >>> The procedure is attached. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Tue Feb 20 13:39:34 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:39:34 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GAC/NCSG Meeting/ Please approve by tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh, Appreciated, the agenda is fine with me, if possibilities arise to add Privacy into it even as an AOB great. Thank you Poncelet On 19 February 2018 at 21:31, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks for working on this, Farzaneh - it looks good to me. > > I might just suggest bumping privacy up one spot on the agenda. > > Best wishes > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On 19 February 2018 10:19 PM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Here is the agenda I have in mind for the 30 minute chat we have with GAC. > > Agenda of NCSG meeting with GAC: > > - Background on NCSG, our values and convergence of our values with GAC > > - Rights Protection Mechanisms ( FoE perspective) > > - Privacy > > - Wrap up > > Farzaneh > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 22 02:14:01 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:14:01 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment Message-ID: Dear all, I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. Thanks, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 02:22:12 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:22:12 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ayden for the revisions, I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. Best, Rafik 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Dear all, > > I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C > 5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing > > It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on > the right track. > > Thanks, > > Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Thu Feb 22 06:24:16 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:24:16 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <74F67937-A810-4FDD-8F5A-EE69E3BE9FB7@davecake.net> Message-ID: <730E0F59-3BE2-43AF-A55B-2B3EAC4BB0DC@davecake.net> Yes. We need to find consensus in the end, I think it is useful to make that obvious rather than go through a few rounds of voting just to make it clear that a non-consensus candidate does not have the necessary numbers. I think it is absolutely in NCSGs strategic interest to block vote when CSG block votes, to make any process that attempts to bypass seeking consensus or negotiating with NCSG as a whole fail. David > On 17 Feb 2018, at 12:18 am, avri doria wrote: > > (observer) > > Hi, > > Re finding consensus on a candidate: Isn't this what has has happened > every time after going through a long voting process and failing. Seems > reasonable to just get this step out of the way as the next step after > collecting names, reading statements and doing interviews. And it is > less divisive then candidates getting a majority but never the > supermajority (8) required. > > Since they most always vote in a block, an NCSG candidate cannot win > unless they agree in the first place. All NCSG voters can do, assuming > NCSG sticks with non block voting is to decide to accept their candidate > or not. And if NCSG votes in block, it insures a deadlock. It has > always come down to negotiation among the leadership, so it might make > sense to just formalize that step as an early step. > > avri > > > On 16-Feb-18 00:36, David Cake wrote: >> The only problem with the procedure is that it takes the really >> difficult parts of the process, and turns it into ?seek consensus?, >> which practically may need a lot more detail. Though some of that >> detail may be more useful to do ad hoc depending on number of >> interested candidates etc, and there probably really is no useful way >> to make consensus easier to find purely through process, and it?s >> valuable to make it very clear tha5 consensus is required. >> >> Also, while full consensus is clearly ideal, should probably be >> ?rough consensus?, we need a clear 8+ votes not unanimity (we don?t >> want to allow any single councillor to derail the process). But I >> thoroughly agree that seeking rough consensus between the SGs before >> the ballot is the only practical functional process. >> Running against NOTA serves as a useful check on attempts to game >> negotiations, and is needed for formality. >> >> David >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 13 Feb 2018, at 7:49 am, farzaneh badii > >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple >>> candidates if I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on >>> past experience (3 elections and some of them reached deadlocks, >>> Rafik can elaborate) having multiple candidates to vote on is not in >>> the interest of NCSG. What worked well for NCSG and CSG in previous >>> elections is to discuss until they come up with one consensus >>> candidate to vote on. >>> >>> As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the >>> last Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common >>> practice in GNSO elections. >>> Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA >>> . 13 to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA >>> plays a tie-breaker here]. >>> >>> Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election >>> with one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in >>> the past and it is needed for formality and procedural matter. >>> >>> If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the >>> election, he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there >>> certainly is a problem and it makes sense to re-start the process to >>> solve that between the 2 groups. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> (this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's >>> response below.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even >>> commented on my earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer. >>> >>> Questions on your proposal: >>> >>> 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier? >>> 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning? >>> 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and >>> interviewers will be from both SGs? >>> >>> NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus >>> candidate to run for the election. >>> >>> >>> 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only >>> candidate and then it would not make sense to have elections >>> anymore. I think you meant that both SGs decide on their best >>> candidate but what would then be the consensus candidate of the NCA? >>> >>> I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be >>> relatively hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it >>> doesn't happen, the whole thing is restarted god knows how many >>> times. >>> >>> For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal: >>> >>> /Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only >>> the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. In >>> case the first round results in a tie of three or more >>> candidates, the SG that has two or more candidates has to choose >>> one for the second round. Both SGs would have one candidate each >>> on the second round, despite the results in the first round. >>> >>> / >>> /Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that >>> all the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead >>> of just their own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the >>> opinion of all the NCPH councilors on the prospective candidates >>> through votes, instead of trying to guess which of the SG's >>> candidates would go through better. >>> >>> / >>> /Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer >>> pressure from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of >>> candidates for the first round can not exceed the amount of GNSO >>> councilors in the SG. / >>> >>> -Raoul >>> >>> On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple >>> and based on our past experience. Rafik and I came up with >>> this procedure to propose to the small group which we decided >>> to convene during the intersessional. We want to kick start >>> that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let me >>> know before that. Note that you can still send your comments >>> when we have started the group, we can consider them when >>> discussing with the drafting team. we will meet in PR to >>> finalize this. >>> >>> The procedure is attached. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From dave at davecake.net Thu Feb 22 06:29:44 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:29:44 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <74F67937-A810-4FDD-8F5A-EE69E3BE9FB7@davecake.net> Message-ID: <7F36802E-AB48-415A-AFCA-18F4728FA509@davecake.net> We don?t just need 8+ votes for strategic reasons - it is the rules. A first round of voting that will not succeed is best done informally if at all, and if CSG is going to bloc vote (as they very likely will in any formal vote) it is never in NCSGs interest to allow a free vote. If there is a final round with one candidate from each SG, the result will be stalemate (if NCSG all votes together) or the NCSG candidate loses (if we allow a free vote and there are defections). If there are two candidates, one for each SG, and CSG votes as a bloc, as they almost always do, there is no scenario where the NCSG candidate wins. So that seems a fairly terrible idea. David > On 20 Feb 2018, at 4:17 am, Raoul Plommer wrote: > > Ok, I totally agree that we need 8+ votes on the particular candidate to avoid NCA having too much power and I did get that from Farzi's explanation. Sorry for being late to answer. > Could we use that 1st round with more candidates for seeking that rough consensus before the final round? Make it a more official that way. I think it would create more buzz and consensus reaching than without the second round. > > In the final round there would be only one candidate from each SG. We could have just one week between the first and second round. > > -Raoul > > On 16 February 2018 at 07:36, David Cake > wrote: > The only problem with the procedure is that it takes the really difficult parts of the process, and turns it into ?seek consensus?, which practically may need a lot more detail. Though some of that detail may be more useful to do ad hoc depending on number of interested candidates etc, and there probably really is no useful way to make consensus easier to find purely through process, and it?s valuable to make it very clear tha5 consensus is required. > > Also, while full consensus is clearly ideal, should probably be ?rough consensus?, we need a clear 8+ votes not unanimity (we don?t want to allow any single councillor to derail the process). But I thoroughly agree that seeking rough consensus between the SGs before the ballot is the only practical functional process. > Running against NOTA serves as a useful check on attempts to game negotiations, and is needed for formality. > > David > > Sent from my iPad > > On 13 Feb 2018, at 7:49 am, farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple candidates if I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on past experience (3 elections and some of them reached deadlocks, Rafik can elaborate) having multiple candidates to vote on is not in the interest of NCSG. What worked well for NCSG and CSG in previous elections is to discuss until they come up with one consensus candidate to vote on. >> >> As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the last Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common practice in GNSO elections. >> Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA . 13 to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA plays a tie-breaker here]. >> >> Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election with one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in the past and it is needed for formality and procedural matter. >> >> If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the election, he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there certainly is a problem and it makes sense to re-start the process to solve that between the 2 groups. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> (this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's response below.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer > wrote: >> I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even commented on my earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer. >> >> Questions on your proposal: >> >> 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier? >> 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning? >> 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and interviewers will be from both SGs? >> >> NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus >> candidate to run for the election. >> >> 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only candidate and then it would not make sense to have elections anymore. I think you meant that both SGs decide on their best candidate but what would then be the consensus candidate of the NCA? >> >> I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be relatively hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it doesn't happen, the whole thing is restarted god knows how many times. >> >> For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal: >> >> Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round. >> >> Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better. >> >> Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. >> >> -Raoul >> >> On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC > wrote: >> We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based on our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose to the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. We want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. >> >> The procedure is attached. >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 06:42:14 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:42:14 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that part, I will fully support. Cheers, Martin On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > Thanks Ayden for the revisions, > I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the > deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Dear all, >> >> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZ >> NqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >> >> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on >> the right track. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 22 09:58:18 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:58:18 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6lStLrEOA9n9WPyMIyanXqKpuiFn3VXI1HiyvuvRk0tGtQZQ64CDhu6q-1hze05F-RKQg7lkfRQMjwwy9NDYPPs9-9xVEV9e7DTYWU32Shk=@ferdeline.com> But Martin that is exactly what the comment says; we are saying that the size of the fellowship and NextGen programmes should be informed by evidence! :-) I think this bullet point is really very mild; not taking a position either way on this contentious issue, just saying, ?get it right.? I will defer to others on this one to either express support or to put forward alternative wording. Thanks! Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 05:42, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Hi all, > > Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. > > If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that part, I will fully support. > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > >> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ayden >>> ______________________________ _________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plommer at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 14:03:46 2018 From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:03:46 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal In-Reply-To: <7F36802E-AB48-415A-AFCA-18F4728FA509@davecake.net> References: <74F67937-A810-4FDD-8F5A-EE69E3BE9FB7@davecake.net> <7F36802E-AB48-415A-AFCA-18F4728FA509@davecake.net> Message-ID: > > If there are two candidates, one for each SG, and CSG votes as a bloc, as > they almost always do, there is no scenario where the NCSG candidate wins. > So that seems a fairly terrible idea. The NCSG acts as a bloc too. I think this is how it really goes at the moment and will probably do so in the future, too. I think rotating the NCPH seat between CSG and NCSG would be the only way to really avoid this conflict. The problem with this particular election is, that it's hard to reach consensus on one person from "opposite" stakeholder groups and I find it unnecessarily difficult process, with no elected board member as long as consensus is not reached. -Raoul On 22 February 2018 at 06:29, David Cake wrote: > We don?t just need 8+ votes for strategic reasons - it is the rules. A > first round of voting that will not succeed is best done informally if at > all, and if CSG is going to bloc vote (as they very likely will in any > formal vote) it is never in NCSGs interest to allow a free vote. > If there is a final round with one candidate from each SG, the result will > be stalemate (if NCSG all votes together) or the NCSG candidate loses (if > we allow a free vote and there are defections). If there are two > candidates, one for each SG, and CSG votes as a bloc, as they almost always > do, there is no scenario where the NCSG candidate wins. So that seems a > fairly terrible idea. > > David > > > On 20 Feb 2018, at 4:17 am, Raoul Plommer wrote: > > Ok, I totally agree that we need 8+ votes on the particular candidate to > avoid NCA having too much power and I did get that from Farzi's > explanation. Sorry for being late to answer. > Could we use that 1st round with more candidates for seeking that rough > consensus before the final round? Make it a more official that way. I think > it would create more buzz and consensus reaching than without the second > round. > > In the final round there would be only one candidate from each SG. We > could have just one week between the first and second round. > > -Raoul > > On 16 February 2018 at 07:36, David Cake wrote: > >> The only problem with the procedure is that it takes the really difficult >> parts of the process, and turns it into ?seek consensus?, which practically >> may need a lot more detail. Though some of that detail may be more useful >> to do ad hoc depending on number of interested candidates etc, and there >> probably really is no useful way to make consensus easier to find purely >> through process, and it?s valuable to make it very clear tha5 consensus is >> required. >> >> Also, while full consensus is clearly ideal, should probably be ?rough >> consensus?, we need a clear 8+ votes not unanimity (we don?t want to allow >> any single councillor to derail the process). But I thoroughly agree that >> seeking rough consensus between the SGs before the ballot is the only >> practical functional process. >> Running against NOTA serves as a useful check on attempts to game >> negotiations, and is needed for formality. >> >> David >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 13 Feb 2018, at 7:49 am, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple candidates if >> I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on past experience (3 >> elections and some of them reached deadlocks, Rafik can elaborate) having >> multiple candidates to vote on is not in the interest of NCSG. What worked >> well for NCSG and CSG in previous elections is to discuss until they come >> up with one consensus candidate to vote on. >> >> As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the last >> Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common practice in GNSO >> elections. >> Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA . 13 >> to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA plays a >> tie-breaker here]. >> >> Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election with >> one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in the past and >> it is needed for formality and procedural matter. >> >> If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the election, >> he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there certainly is a >> problem and it makes sense to re-start the process to solve that between >> the 2 groups. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> (this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's response >> below.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer wrote: >> >>> I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even commented on >>> my earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer. >>> >>> Questions on your proposal: >>> >>> 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier? >>> 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning? >>> 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and interviewers >>> will be from both SGs? >>> >>> NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus >>>> candidate to run for the election. >>>> >>> >>> 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only candidate >>> and then it would not make sense to have elections anymore. I think you >>> meant that both SGs decide on their best candidate but what would then be >>> the consensus candidate of the NCA? >>> >>> I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be relatively >>> hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it doesn't happen, the whole >>> thing is restarted god knows how many times. >>> >>> For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal: >>> >>> >>> >>> *Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two >>> candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round >>> results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more >>> candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one >>> candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round.* >>> >>> >>> *Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all >>> the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their >>> own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH >>> councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying >>> to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better.* >>> *Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure >>> from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first >>> round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. * >>> >>> -Raoul >>> >>> On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> >>>> We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based >>>> on our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose >>>> to the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. >>>> We want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments >>>> let me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we >>>> have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the >>>> drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. >>>> >>>> The procedure is attached. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 22 16:58:59 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:58:59 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] BC/IPC Slidedeck on Convergence Model Message-ID: Attached is a summary of the GDPR compliance model that ICANN plans to release next week. It is not yet public, but somehow the BC and IPC have it already. - Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GDPR and WHOIS Event - Part 2 - Slide Deck.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 776523 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 17:10:51 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:10:51 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] BC/IPC Slidedeck on Convergence Model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *ICANN would like the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to coordinate its members to prepare country-by-country lists of authorized law enforcement agencies, to use as the basis for accredited law enforcement access to non-public WHOIS data. ICANN would also like the GAC to prepare a Code of Conduct for law enforcement access to WHOIS data.* Wow! I am speechless. Code of conduct for some countries that their criminal law allows for chopping fingers? That have notorious law enforcement? That almost any political move is corruption on earth and against national security? What would that code of conduct entail? Chop their finger gently? Give them water in their cell? And would this access be global? To any registration? Farzaneh On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Attached is a summary of the GDPR compliance model that ICANN plans to > release next week. It is not yet public, but somehow the BC and IPC have it > already. > > - Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 22 17:47:11 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:47:11 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] BC/IPC Slidedeck on Convergence Model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another proposal is that any actor, like a private sector cybersecurity investigator, could "self-certify" and be able to obtain bulk access to as many records as they like in the tiered-access system... this is not a part of the official proposal, but a suggestion that was raised on the call... I find myself unable to support such an honor system. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 22 February 2018 4:10 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > *ICANN would like the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to coordinate its > members to prepare country-by-country lists of authorized law enforcement agencies, to > use as the basis for accredited law enforcement access to non-public WHOIS > data. ICANN would also like the GAC to prepare a Code of Conduct for law enforcement > access to WHOIS data.* > > Wow! I am speechless. Code of conduct for some countries that their criminal law allows for chopping fingers? That have notorious law enforcement? That almost any political move is corruption on earth and against national security? What would that code of conduct entail? Chop their finger gently? Give them water in their cell? > > And would this access be global? To any registration? > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Attached is a summary of the GDPR compliance model that ICANN plans to release next week. It is not yet public, but somehow the BC and IPC have it already. >> - Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Thu Feb 22 18:53:06 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:53:06 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] BC/IPC Slidedeck on Convergence Model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29BBCB8F-838D-4806-A2FE-CD0C5C39542C@benin2point0.org> > *ICANN would like the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to coordinate its > members to prepare country-by-country lists of authorized law enforcement agencies, to > use as the basis for accredited law enforcement access to non-public WHOIS > data. ICANN would also like the GAC to prepare a Code of Conduct for law enforcement > access to WHOIS data.* Seriously ? Best Regards @__f_f__ ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. farell at benin2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf twitter.com/@__f_f__ > On 22 Feb 2018, at 16:10, farzaneh badii wrote: > > *ICANN would like the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to coordinate its > members to prepare country-by-country lists of authorized law enforcement agencies, to > use as the basis for accredited law enforcement access to non-public WHOIS > data. ICANN would also like the GAC to prepare a Code of Conduct for law enforcement > access to WHOIS data.* > > Wow! I am speechless. Code of conduct for some countries that their criminal law allows for chopping fingers? That have notorious law enforcement? That almost any political move is corruption on earth and against national security? What would that code of conduct entail? Chop their finger gently? Give them water in their cell? > > And would this access be global? To any registration? > > > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > Attached is a summary of the GDPR compliance model that ICANN plans to release next week. It is not yet public, but somehow the BC and IPC have it already. > > - Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 19:57:39 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:57:39 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] BC/IPC Slidedeck on Convergence Model In-Reply-To: <29BBCB8F-838D-4806-A2FE-CD0C5C39542C@benin2point0.org> References: <29BBCB8F-838D-4806-A2FE-CD0C5C39542C@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Well, today they can enter without ANY of that, so it is an overall improvement, the question is if that?s enough to comply with GDPR. Cheers, Mart?n > On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:53, Farell FOLLY wrote: > >> *ICANN would like the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to coordinate its >> members to prepare country-by-country lists of authorized law enforcement agencies, to >> use as the basis for accredited law enforcement access to non-public WHOIS >> data. ICANN would also like the GAC to prepare a Code of Conduct for law enforcement >> access to WHOIS data.* > > Seriously ? > > > > > Best Regards > @__f_f__ > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > farell at benin2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > twitter.com/@__f_f__ > > > > >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 16:10, farzaneh badii > wrote: >> >> *ICANN would like the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to coordinate its >> members to prepare country-by-country lists of authorized law enforcement agencies, to >> use as the basis for accredited law enforcement access to non-public WHOIS >> data. ICANN would also like the GAC to prepare a Code of Conduct for law enforcement >> access to WHOIS data.* >> >> Wow! I am speechless. Code of conduct for some countries that their criminal law allows for chopping fingers? That have notorious law enforcement? That almost any political move is corruption on earth and against national security? What would that code of conduct entail? Chop their finger gently? Give them water in their cell? >> >> And would this access be global? To any registration? >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >> Attached is a summary of the GDPR compliance model that ICANN plans to release next week. It is not yet public, but somehow the BC and IPC have it already. >> >> - Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu Feb 22 20:02:18 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:02:18 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] BC/IPC Slidedeck on Convergence Model In-Reply-To: References: <29BBCB8F-838D-4806-A2FE-CD0C5C39542C@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: <6cfedbd9-1c9f-f72c-6969-848fdd42d525@kathykleiman.com> Agreed! One f the key issues will be access. Right now ICANN Staff is positing a single credential and then unlimited access to the database (we have called this "all you can eat" access in the past). That is not safe for registrants, and does not seem to be consistent with the GDPR. Each access to the database of non-public personal data has to have a legitimate purpose. This will be an interesting area of work in the coming days... Best, Kathy On 2/22/2018 12:57 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Well, today they can enter without ANY of that, so it is an overall > improvement, the question is if that?s enough to comply with GDPR. > > Cheers, > Mart?n > >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:53, Farell FOLLY > > wrote: >> >>> *ICANN would like the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to >>> coordinate its >>> members to prepare country-by-country lists of authorized law >>> enforcement agencies, to >>> use as the basis for accredited law enforcement access to non-public >>> WHOIS >>> data. ICANN would also like the GAC to prepare a Code of Conduct for >>> law enforcement >>> access to WHOIS data.* >> >> *Seriously ?* >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> @__f_f__ >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> farell at benin2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> twitter.com/@__f_f__ >> >> >> >> >>> On 22 Feb 2018, at 16:10, farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >>> >>> *ICANN would like the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to >>> coordinate its >>> members to prepare country-by-country lists of authorized law >>> enforcement agencies, to >>> use as the basis for accredited law enforcement access to non-public >>> WHOIS >>> data. ICANN would also like the GAC to prepare a Code of Conduct for >>> law enforcement >>> access to WHOIS data.* >>> >>> Wow! I am speechless. Code of conduct for some countries that their >>> criminal law allows for chopping fingers? That have notorious law >>> enforcement? That almost any political move is corruption on earth >>> and against national security? What would that code of conduct >>> entail? Chop their finger gently? Give them water in their cell? >>> >>> And would this access be global? To any registration? >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Ayden F?rdeline >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Attached is a summary of the GDPR compliance model that ICANN >>> plans to release next week. It is not yet public, but somehow >>> the BC and IPC have it already. >>> >>> - Ayden >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 22 22:38:26 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:38:26 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [idea] Meeting with Dan Halloran? Message-ID: Just had a thought - in San Juan, why don't we invite ICANN's newly appointed Chief Data Protection Officer to join us for half an hour to listen to us and to perhaps answer some of our questions; might make for an interesting conversation... Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 23 02:09:06 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:09:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [idea] Meeting with Dan Halloran? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks, I guess that is for the NCSG meeting during constituency day, Farzaneh may respond to that since she is working on the agenda. Best, Rafik 2018-02-23 5:38 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Just had a thought - in San Juan, why don't we invite ICANN's newly > appointed Chief Data Protection Officer to join us for half an hour to > listen to us and to perhaps answer some of our questions; might make for an > interesting conversation... > > Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Feb 23 03:40:45 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 20:40:45 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [idea] Meeting with Dan Halloran? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We have a couple of options. 1. Invite Sally (budget changes) and then Thomas Rickert (privacy) 2. Invite Halloran and Rickert I have up until now for NCSG open session Nomcom, Finance team scheduled. Up to you. I am taking decisions very slowly because things unfold really slowly before this meeting and I don't want to fill up the schedule if something important comes up. Farzaneh On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks, > I guess that is for the NCSG meeting during constituency day, Farzaneh may > respond to that since she is working on the agenda. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-23 5:38 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Just had a thought - in San Juan, why don't we invite ICANN's newly >> appointed Chief Data Protection Officer to join us for half an hour to >> listen to us and to perhaps answer some of our questions; might make for an >> interesting conversation... >> >> Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Feb 23 04:41:38 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:41:38 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [idea] Meeting with Dan Halloran? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <176bb47e-0761-1464-57cf-cd4682cd16df@mail.utoronto.ca> Let me guess Ayden...it has been a really long day and your inner piranha is emerging....:-) Sure, lets do that.? I can take my inner piranha out for a walk as well..... cheers Steph On 2018-02-22 19:09, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks, > I guess that is for the NCSG meeting during constituency day, Farzaneh > may respond to that since she is working on the agenda. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-23 5:38 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: > > Just had a thought - in San Juan, why don't we invite ICANN's > newly appointed Chief Data Protection Officer to join us for half > an hour to listen to us and to perhaps answer some of our > questions; might make for an interesting conversation... > > Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Feb 23 05:59:35 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:59:35 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [idea] Meeting with Dan Halloran? In-Reply-To: <176bb47e-0761-1464-57cf-cd4682cd16df@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <176bb47e-0761-1464-57cf-cd4682cd16df@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Stephanie, your response does not answer any of my serious questions about NCSG open meeting. Also I would like to know what want to talk about with Halloran. Farzaneh On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Let me guess Ayden...it has been a really long day and your inner piranha > is emerging....:-) > > Sure, lets do that. I can take my inner piranha out for a walk as > well..... > > cheers Steph > On 2018-02-22 19:09, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks, > I guess that is for the NCSG meeting during constituency day, Farzaneh may > respond to that since she is working on the agenda. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-23 5:38 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Just had a thought - in San Juan, why don't we invite ICANN's newly >> appointed Chief Data Protection Officer to join us for half an hour to >> listen to us and to perhaps answer some of our questions; might make for an >> interesting conversation... >> >> Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 23 06:03:13 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:03:13 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [idea] Meeting with Dan Halloran? In-Reply-To: References: <176bb47e-0761-1464-57cf-cd4682cd16df@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, if I am not mistaking Dan while he is the CDPO for ICANN, he is not involved in GDPR which is the most pressing issue for us. Do we have something in particular for him as questions or is it seen as introduce him to NCSG? Best, Rafik 2018-02-23 12:59 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii : > Stephanie, your response does not answer any of my serious questions about > NCSG open meeting. Also I would like to know what want to talk about with > Halloran. > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> Let me guess Ayden...it has been a really long day and your inner piranha >> is emerging....:-) >> >> Sure, lets do that. I can take my inner piranha out for a walk as >> well..... >> >> cheers Steph >> On 2018-02-22 19:09, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks, >> I guess that is for the NCSG meeting during constituency day, Farzaneh >> may respond to that since she is working on the agenda. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-23 5:38 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> Just had a thought - in San Juan, why don't we invite ICANN's newly >>> appointed Chief Data Protection Officer to join us for half an hour to >>> listen to us and to perhaps answer some of our questions; might make for an >>> interesting conversation... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 23 06:04:51 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:04:51 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [idea] Meeting with Dan Halloran? In-Reply-To: References: <176bb47e-0761-1464-57cf-cd4682cd16df@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Yes that is what I want to know too. because as always their response would be they are not interested in GDPR. so what specific questions do you have that is within his mission? Farzaneh On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > if I am not mistaking Dan while he is the CDPO for ICANN, he is not > involved in GDPR which is the most pressing issue for us. Do we have > something in particular for him as questions or is it seen as introduce him > to NCSG? > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-23 12:59 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii : > >> Stephanie, your response does not answer any of my serious questions >> about NCSG open meeting. Also I would like to know what want to talk about >> with Halloran. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >>> Let me guess Ayden...it has been a really long day and your inner >>> piranha is emerging....:-) >>> >>> Sure, lets do that. I can take my inner piranha out for a walk as >>> well..... >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> On 2018-02-22 19:09, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks, >>> I guess that is for the NCSG meeting during constituency day, Farzaneh >>> may respond to that since she is working on the agenda. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2018-02-23 5:38 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>>> Just had a thought - in San Juan, why don't we invite ICANN's newly >>>> appointed Chief Data Protection Officer to join us for half an hour to >>>> listen to us and to perhaps answer some of our questions; might make for an >>>> interesting conversation... >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Feb 23 17:21:40 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:21:40 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [idea] Meeting with Dan Halloran? In-Reply-To: References: <176bb47e-0761-1464-57cf-cd4682cd16df@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I actually don't want to speak to him about WHOIS. I'm curious about what ICANN is doing internally to make sure it complies with the GDPR in its broader operations. I thought it would be useful to ask Halloran questions that are within his scope of work. Is ICANN revising its privacy policy, for instance, and if so, what protections, if any, will it extend to registrants and to the community? What data does ICANN hold on community members, and how is it safeguarded (i.e. who has access to our constituency travel data? how are records for special travel accommodations, i.e. because of medical need, protected?) In the Budget, resources are allocated to private investigations. Who is ICANN investigating? I've always presumed the backgrounds of incoming Board members or staff but we've never clarified this, I don't think. Does ICANN keep tabs on individual community members as a part of the threat/risk assessments that the Security Operations team conducts? In the January 2018 Executive Team report, this department mentioned providing internal teams with "security intelligence" and said they "provided successful safety and security support at various events including Board Workshop in Montevideo, ICANN60 in Abu Dhabi, Afrinic in Lagos, Nigeria, the DNS Forum in Minsk, Belarus, and the IGF in Geneva, Switzerland; [and] conducted site visits of Puerto Rico and Panama for ICANN61 and 62 respectively." They seem to be very thorough, so it would seem a gap in their work to not sometimes be paying attention to meeting delegates. How do they keep their intelligence reports safe, who can access them, and what personal data is inside of them? We know that ICANN maintains briefing notes on panelists speaking at conferences where senior ICANN staff will be present; does ICANN org similarly keep dossiers on community members, for instance? To be very clear, these are just questions. I am not suggesting there is anything happening which is improper. I'm just wondering what data the organisation holds on us and whether they even know, too. This needs to be mapped... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- On 23 February 2018 5:04 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Yes that is what I want to know too. because as always their response would be they are not interested in GDPR. so what specific questions do you have that is within his mission? > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> if I am not mistaking Dan while he is the CDPO for ICANN, he is not involved in GDPR which is the most pressing issue for us. Do we have something in particular for him as questions or is it seen as introduce him to NCSG? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-23 12:59 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii : >> >>> Stephanie, your response does not answer any of my serious questions about NCSG open meeting. Also I would like to know what want to talk about with Halloran. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>>> Let me guess Ayden...it has been a really long day and your inner piranha is emerging....:-) >>>> >>>> Sure, lets do that. I can take my inner piranha out for a walk as well..... >>>> >>>> cheers Steph >>>> >>>> On 2018-02-22 19:09, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> I guess that is for the NCSG meeting during constituency day, Farzaneh may respond to that since she is working on the agenda. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2018-02-23 5:38 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>> >>>>>> Just had a thought - in San Juan, why don't we invite ICANN's newly appointed Chief Data Protection Officer to join us for half an hour to listen to us and to perhaps answer some of our questions; might make for an interesting conversation... >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________ >>>>> >>>>> _________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is[https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ >>>>> >>>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Feb 23 18:28:44 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:28:44 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik, and hi all- Just a small request from me, as I try to manage my workload over the next fortnight, could you please try to review the Budget comment over the weekend or on Monday? The following week I will at the Internet Freedom Festival, then traveling on to San Juan, so I am hoping we might be able to get this comment finalised a little earlier than normal and perhaps even submit it a few days early. The closing data for submissions is Thursday 8 March, but if we could submit ours by Friday 2 March, I think that would be ideal. One less thing to worry about before we prep for ICANN 61. Many thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 22 February 2018 1:22 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Ayden for the revisions, > I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Dear all, >> >> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >> >> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Feb 24 01:23:19 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:23:19 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Slack experiment Message-ID: <09oGSTXFPCTjJjIlHEkHBUcr_MjnsGvvSA66YdYexL_ypN_b0_1fzHH77l1tGrSvKqjSJ69gR99fytHy-EKbpviOx83wok_MbQe0CzQVu54=@ferdeline.com> Hi all, You might have seen an invitation in your inbox to join Slack - please do! This is an experiment, between now and during San Juan, to see if we can move some of our informal conversations to this tool and off of Skype. If you like Skype's notifications, please download the Slack program or app, that way you will continue to receive notifications. We will continue using this mailing list, of course, but for the conversations currently happening in informal channels, Slack might be a useful resource for us. If you are an observer to this list, please email me for an invitation; you are more than welcome to join us on Slack. Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Sat Feb 24 10:59:54 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 09:59:54 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E716576-A7AA-409D-8594-F380A462C980@benin2point0.org> Ayden, I will do. Best Regards @__f_f__ ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. farell at benin2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf twitter.com/@__f_f__ > On 23 Feb 2018, at 17:28, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks, Rafik, and hi all- > > Just a small request from me, as I try to manage my workload over the next fortnight, could you please try to review the Budget comment over the weekend or on Monday? > > The following week I will at the Internet Freedom Festival, then traveling on to San Juan, so I am hoping we might be able to get this comment finalised a little earlier than normal and perhaps even submit it a few days early. > > The closing data for submissions is Thursday 8 March, but if we could submit ours by Friday 2 March, I think that would be ideal. One less thing to worry about before we prep for ICANN 61. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 22 February 2018 1:22 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: >> Dear all, >> >> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >> >> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Mon Feb 26 11:19:07 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:19:07 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I believe this is the section that is problematic in my view and needs to be rephrased: "*We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes*." It means for me that we support the fact that those programs are cut the way it is suggested in the budget. I don't think we have consensus on this and we should not support, as a SG, the way these programs have been reduced in number (by half or so). I may be wrong though :) I think what we encourage, and what we have agreement on, is the need for an assessment on the effectiveneess of the program and only after that assessment, we can agree on the right action to take on it. This can lead to a cut in number of attendees or anything else but we cannot say that at this moment, before that professional assessment is done. And I believe that's what we pushed for at Council level. Other than that, i fully support the submission of this comment and would like to thank Ayden and everyone for their participation. After reading the comment, it captures everything we discussed and captures what we stand for. As i always say, this is a good informational piece as well for us. ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) 2018-02-22 6:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent : > Hi all, > > Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. I > do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind cut > with no metrics and debate to balance it out. > > If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that > part, I will fully support. > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > >> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, >> the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZ >>> NqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is >>> on the right track. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 26 12:04:11 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:04:11 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I feel like I'm responding to a carbon copy of Martin's comment - so my answer remains the same! :-) The dictionary definition of 'rightsizing' is to "convert (something) to an appropriate or optimum size." That's what we are saying, and I think it is apparent if read in the context of the entire paragraph and not that one sentence which has been extracted. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 26 February 2018 10:19 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > I believe this is the section that is problematic in my view and needs to be rephrased: "We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes." It means for me that we support the fact that those programs are cut the way it is suggested in the budget. I don't think we have consensus on this and we should not support, as a SG, the way these programs have been reduced in number (by half or so). I may be wrong though :) > > I think what we encourage, and what we have agreement on, is the need for an assessment on the effectiveneess of the program and only after that assessment, we can agree on the right action to take on it. This can lead to a cut in number of attendees or anything else but we cannot say that at this moment, before that professional assessment is done. And I believe that's what we pushed for at Council level. > Other than that, i fully support the submission of this comment and would like to thank Ayden and everyone for their participation. After reading the comment, it captures everything we discussed and captures what we stand for. As i always say, this is a good informational piece as well for us. > > ------------------------ > *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* > Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), > CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) > > 2018-02-22 6:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent : > >> Hi all, >> >> Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. >> >> If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that part, I will fully support. >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> >> On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: >> >>> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >>> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Mon Feb 26 12:10:23 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:10:23 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: May I suggest something like: "We do not support the current suggested harsh cut on these programs but we request an assessment before any such decision can be taken". This is what i would like to see there. I am not that good in English so would suggest a rephrasing so it means this for me. If what is written there is the same as what i am sugesting, then fine with me. The current language on that one sentence is confusing for me. And i will leave this here for you guys to decide as a group. Thank you, Arsene ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) 2018-02-26 12:04 GMT+02:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > I feel like I'm responding to a carbon copy of Martin's comment - so my > answer remains the same! :-) The dictionary definition of 'rightsizing' is > to "convert (something) to an appropriate or optimum size." That's what we > are saying, and I think it is apparent if read in the context of the entire > paragraph and not that one sentence which has been extracted. > > Thanks, > > Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 26 February 2018 10:19 AM, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > > I believe this is the section that is problematic in my view and needs to > be rephrased: "*We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen > programmes*." It means for me that we support the fact that those > programs are cut the way it is suggested in the budget. I don't think we > have consensus on this and we should not support, as a SG, the way these > programs have been reduced in number (by half or so). I may be wrong though > :) > > I think what we encourage, and what we have agreement on, is the need for > an assessment on the effectiveneess of the program and only after that > assessment, we can agree on the right action to take on it. This can lead > to a cut in number of attendees or anything else but we cannot say that at > this moment, before that professional assessment is done. And I believe > that's what we pushed for at Council level. > Other than that, i fully support the submission of this comment and would > like to thank Ayden and everyone for their participation. After reading the > comment, it captures everything we discussed and captures what we stand > for. As i always say, this is a good informational piece as well for us. > > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > & Mexico > ) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > (Mauritius > > )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > > 2018-02-22 6:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>: > >> Hi all, >> >> Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. >> I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind >> cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. >> >> If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that >> part, I will fully support. >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> >> On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: >> >>> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >>> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, >>> the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZ >>>> NqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is >>>> on the right track. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 26 12:12:40 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:12:40 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-LWvq1ayuCH7QYrxmLEHxXonVRpDBhSw_ewTiauHogk7pPnyLCNEsFn0Bkwzzdr17c_4RsXH3HT6nQcFpguunqegSWd2xP8y-QnhlsW3ZaM=@ferdeline.com> Thanks Arsene, I think we are expressing the same sentiment albeit diplomatically, however I will allow Rafik as PC Chair to mediate and resolve this one. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 26 February 2018 11:10 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > May I suggest something like: "We do not support the current suggested harsh cut on these programs but we request an assessment before any such decision can be taken". This is what i would like to see there. I am not that good in English so would suggest a rephrasing so it means this for me. If what is written there is the same as what i am sugesting, then fine with me. The current language on that one sentence is confusing for me. > And i will leave this here for you guys to decide as a group. > > Thank you, > Arsene > > ------------------------ > *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* > Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), > CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) > > 2018-02-26 12:04 GMT+02:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> I feel like I'm responding to a carbon copy of Martin's comment - so my answer remains the same! :-) The dictionary definition of 'rightsizing' is to "convert (something) to an appropriate or optimum size." That's what we are saying, and I think it is apparent if read in the context of the entire paragraph and not that one sentence which has been extracted. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 26 February 2018 10:19 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >>> I believe this is the section that is problematic in my view and needs to be rephrased: "We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes." It means for me that we support the fact that those programs are cut the way it is suggested in the budget. I don't think we have consensus on this and we should not support, as a SG, the way these programs have been reduced in number (by half or so). I may be wrong though :) >>> >>> I think what we encourage, and what we have agreement on, is the need for an assessment on the effectiveneess of the program and only after that assessment, we can agree on the right action to take on it. This can lead to a cut in number of attendees or anything else but we cannot say that at this moment, before that professional assessment is done. And I believe that's what we pushed for at Council level. >>> Other than that, i fully support the submission of this comment and would like to thank Ayden and everyone for their participation. After reading the comment, it captures everything we discussed and captures what we stand for. As i always say, this is a good informational piece as well for us. >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), >>> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) >>> Tel: [+243 993810967](tel:+243%20993%20810%20967) >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >>> >>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) >>> >>> 2018-02-22 6:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. >>>> >>>> If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that part, I will fully support. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >>>>> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Feb 26 12:44:26 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:44:26 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: <-LWvq1ayuCH7QYrxmLEHxXonVRpDBhSw_ewTiauHogk7pPnyLCNEsFn0Bkwzzdr17c_4RsXH3HT6nQcFpguunqegSWd2xP8y-QnhlsW3ZaM=@ferdeline.com> References: <-LWvq1ayuCH7QYrxmLEHxXonVRpDBhSw_ewTiauHogk7pPnyLCNEsFn0Bkwzzdr17c_4RsXH3HT6nQcFpguunqegSWd2xP8y-QnhlsW3ZaM=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I went through the document and I like the contents as well as the structure. It emphasizes our essential concerns with strong rationale. I made some minor suggestions. Well done Ayden and all those who contribute to this. Have a nice week. Best Regards @__f_f__ ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. farell at benin2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf twitter.com/@__f_f__ > On 26 Feb 2018, at 11:12, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks Arsene, I think we are expressing the same sentiment albeit diplomatically, however I will allow Rafik as PC Chair to mediate and resolve this one. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 26 February 2018 11:10 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> May I suggest something like: "We do not support the current suggested harsh cut on these programs but we request an assessment before any such decision can be taken". This is what i would like to see there. I am not that good in English so would suggest a rephrasing so it means this for me. If what is written there is the same as what i am sugesting, then fine with me. The current language on that one sentence is confusing for me. >> And i will leave this here for you guys to decide as a group. >> >> Thank you, >> Arsene >> >> ------------------------ >> *Ars?ne Tungali * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international , >> CEO, Smart Services Sarl , Mabingwa Forum >> Tel: +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius ) - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >> >> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English ) and (French ) >> >> 2018-02-26 12:04 GMT+02:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: >> I feel like I'm responding to a carbon copy of Martin's comment - so my answer remains the same! :-) The dictionary definition of 'rightsizing' is to "convert (something) to an appropriate or optimum size." That's what we are saying, and I think it is apparent if read in the context of the entire paragraph and not that one sentence which has been extracted. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 26 February 2018 10:19 AM, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: >> >>> I believe this is the section that is problematic in my view and needs to be rephrased: "We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes." It means for me that we support the fact that those programs are cut the way it is suggested in the budget. I don't think we have consensus on this and we should not support, as a SG, the way these programs have been reduced in number (by half or so). I may be wrong though :) >>> >>> I think what we encourage, and what we have agreement on, is the need for an assessment on the effectiveneess of the program and only after that assessment, we can agree on the right action to take on it. This can lead to a cut in number of attendees or anything else but we cannot say that at this moment, before that professional assessment is done. And I believe that's what we pushed for at Council level. >>> Other than that, i fully support the submission of this comment and would like to thank Ayden and everyone for their participation. After reading the comment, it captures everything we discussed and captures what we stand for. As i always say, this is a good informational piece as well for us. >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> *Ars?ne Tungali * >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international , >>> CEO, Smart Services Sarl , Mabingwa Forum >>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius ) - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >>> >>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English ) and (French ) >>> >>> 2018-02-22 6:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent >: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. >>> >>> If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that part, I will fully support. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martin >>> >>> On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" > wrote: >>> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >>> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline >: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Tue Feb 27 15:51:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:51:37 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: <-LWvq1ayuCH7QYrxmLEHxXonVRpDBhSw_ewTiauHogk7pPnyLCNEsFn0Bkwzzdr17c_4RsXH3HT6nQcFpguunqegSWd2xP8y-QnhlsW3ZaM=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thank you very much for your review, Farell. I have now received expressions of support for the submission of this comment from Arsene, Martin, and Farell. Comments close in nine days time, but I would like to get this submitted by Friday if possible (provided there is support of course), as I will be in Spain next week. PC, please can you raise any concerns by Friday at the latest, or indicate whether or not you support the submission of this comment. Thanks again! Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 26 February 2018 11:44 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear all, > > I went through the document and I like the contents as well as the structure. It emphasizes our essential concerns with strong rationale. I made some minor suggestions. > > Well done Ayden and all those who contribute to this. Have a nice week. > > Best Regards > @__f_f__ > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > farell at benin2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > twitter.com/@__f_f__ > >> On 26 Feb 2018, at 11:12, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Thanks Arsene, I think we are expressing the same sentiment albeit diplomatically, however I will allow Rafik as PC Chair to mediate and resolve this one. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 26 February 2018 11:10 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >>> May I suggest something like: "We do not support the current suggested harsh cut on these programs but we request an assessment before any such decision can be taken". This is what i would like to see there. I am not that good in English so would suggest a rephrasing so it means this for me. If what is written there is the same as what i am sugesting, then fine with me. The current language on that one sentence is confusing for me. >>> And i will leave this here for you guys to decide as a group. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Arsene >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org/), >>> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/) >>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com/) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >>> >>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) >>> >>> 2018-02-26 12:04 GMT+02:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>> >>>> I feel like I'm responding to a carbon copy of Martin's comment - so my answer remains the same! :-) The dictionary definition of 'rightsizing' is to "convert (something) to an appropriate or optimum size." That's what we are saying, and I think it is apparent if read in the context of the entire paragraph and not that one sentence which has been extracted. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 26 February 2018 10:19 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>>> >>>>> I believe this is the section that is problematic in my view and needs to be rephrased: "We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes." It means for me that we support the fact that those programs are cut the way it is suggested in the budget. I don't think we have consensus on this and we should not support, as a SG, the way these programs have been reduced in number (by half or so). I may be wrong though :) >>>>> >>>>> I think what we encourage, and what we have agreement on, is the need for an assessment on the effectiveneess of the program and only after that assessment, we can agree on the right action to take on it. This can lead to a cut in number of attendees or anything else but we cannot say that at this moment, before that professional assessment is done. And I believe that's what we pushed for at Council level. >>>>> Other than that, i fully support the submission of this comment and would like to thank Ayden and everyone for their participation. After reading the comment, it captures everything we discussed and captures what we stand for. As i always say, this is a good informational piece as well for us. >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org/), >>>>> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/) >>>>> Tel: [+243 993810967](tel:+243%20993%20810%20967) >>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>> [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com/) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >>>>> >>>>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) >>>>> >>>>> 2018-02-22 6:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. >>>>>> >>>>>> If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that part, I will fully support. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >>>>>>> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Tue Feb 27 15:55:21 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:55:21 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: <-LWvq1ayuCH7QYrxmLEHxXonVRpDBhSw_ewTiauHogk7pPnyLCNEsFn0Bkwzzdr17c_4RsXH3HT6nQcFpguunqegSWd2xP8y-QnhlsW3ZaM=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Dear Ayden, Sorry was to send this earlier, you have my support to submit. Kind Regards Poncelet On 27 February 2018 at 14:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thank you very much for your review, Farell. > > I have now received expressions of support for the submission of this > comment from Arsene, Martin, and Farell. Comments close in nine days time, > but I would like to get this submitted by Friday if possible (provided > there is support of course), as I will be in Spain next week. > > PC, please can you raise any concerns by Friday at the latest, or indicate > whether or not you support the submission of this comment. Thanks again! > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 26 February 2018 11:44 AM, Farell FOLLY > wrote: > > Dear all, > > I went through the document and I like the contents as well as the > structure. It emphasizes our essential concerns with strong rationale. I > made some minor suggestions. > > Well done Ayden and all those who contribute to this. Have a nice week. > > > Best Regards > @__f_f__ > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > farell at benin2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > twitter.com/@__f_f__ > > > On 26 Feb 2018, at 11:12, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks Arsene, I think we are expressing the same sentiment albeit > diplomatically, however I will allow Rafik as PC Chair to mediate and > resolve this one. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 26 February 2018 11:10 AM, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > > May I suggest something like: "We do not support the current suggested > harsh cut on these programs but we request an assessment before any such > decision can be taken". This is what i would like to see there. I am not > that good in English so would suggest a rephrasing so it means this for me. > If what is written there is the same as what i am sugesting, then fine with > me. The current language on that one sentence is confusing for me. > And i will leave this here for you guys to decide as a group. > > Thank you, > Arsene > > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > & Mexico > ) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > (Mauritius > > )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > > 2018-02-26 12:04 GMT+02:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> I feel like I'm responding to a carbon copy of Martin's comment - so my >> answer remains the same! :-) The dictionary definition of 'rightsizing' is >> to "convert (something) to an appropriate or optimum size." That's what we >> are saying, and I think it is apparent if read in the context of the entire >> paragraph and not that one sentence which has been extracted. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 26 February 2018 10:19 AM, Ars?ne Tungali >> wrote: >> >> I believe this is the section that is problematic in my view and needs to >> be rephrased: "*We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen >> programmes*." It means for me that we support the fact that those >> programs are cut the way it is suggested in the budget. I don't think we >> have consensus on this and we should not support, as a SG, the way these >> programs have been reduced in number (by half or so). I may be wrong though >> :) >> >> I think what we encourage, and what we have agreement on, is the need for >> an assessment on the effectiveneess of the program and only after that >> assessment, we can agree on the right action to take on it. This can lead >> to a cut in number of attendees or anything else but we cannot say that at >> this moment, before that professional assessment is done. And I believe >> that's what we pushed for at Council level. >> Other than that, i fully support the submission of this comment and would >> like to thank Ayden and everyone for their participation. After reading the >> comment, it captures everything we discussed and captures what we stand >> for. As i always say, this is a good informational piece as well for us. >> >> ------------------------ >> **Ars?ne Tungali* * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >> Forum * >> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> >> & Mexico >> ) >> - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger >> - ICANN's GNSO Council >> Member. AFRINIC Fellow >> (Mauritius >> >> )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - >> Internet Freedom. >> >> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English >> ) and (French >> ) >> >> 2018-02-22 6:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. >>> I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind >>> cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. >>> >>> If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that >>> part, I will fully support. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Martin >>> >>> On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >>>> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, >>>> the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZ >>>>> NqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is >>>>> on the right track. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 27 16:17:41 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:17:41 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [new draft] NCSG Budget Comment In-Reply-To: References: <-LWvq1ayuCH7QYrxmLEHxXonVRpDBhSw_ewTiauHogk7pPnyLCNEsFn0Bkwzzdr17c_4RsXH3HT6nQcFpguunqegSWd2xP8y-QnhlsW3ZaM=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks Poncelet, I very much appreciate that. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 27 February 2018 2:55 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Dear Ayden, > Sorry was to send this earlier, you have my support to submit. > > Kind Regards > Poncelet > > On 27 February 2018 at 14:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thank you very much for your review, Farell. >> >> I have now received expressions of support for the submission of this comment from Arsene, Martin, and Farell. Comments close in nine days time, but I would like to get this submitted by Friday if possible (provided there is support of course), as I will be in Spain next week. >> >> PC, please can you raise any concerns by Friday at the latest, or indicate whether or not you support the submission of this comment. Thanks again! >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 26 February 2018 11:44 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I went through the document and I like the contents as well as the structure. It emphasizes our essential concerns with strong rationale. I made some minor suggestions. >>> >>> Well done Ayden and all those who contribute to this. Have a nice week. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> @__f_f__ >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>> farell at benin2point0.org >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> twitter.com/@__f_f__ >>> >>>> On 26 Feb 2018, at 11:12, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Arsene, I think we are expressing the same sentiment albeit diplomatically, however I will allow Rafik as PC Chair to mediate and resolve this one. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 26 February 2018 11:10 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>>> >>>>> May I suggest something like: "We do not support the current suggested harsh cut on these programs but we request an assessment before any such decision can be taken". This is what i would like to see there. I am not that good in English so would suggest a rephrasing so it means this for me. If what is written there is the same as what i am sugesting, then fine with me. The current language on that one sentence is confusing for me. >>>>> And i will leave this here for you guys to decide as a group. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Arsene >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org/), >>>>> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/) >>>>> Tel: [+243 993810967](tel:+243%20993%20810%20967) >>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>> [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com/) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >>>>> >>>>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) >>>>> >>>>> 2018-02-26 12:04 GMT+02:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>> >>>>>> I feel like I'm responding to a carbon copy of Martin's comment - so my answer remains the same! :-) The dictionary definition of 'rightsizing' is to "convert (something) to an appropriate or optimum size." That's what we are saying, and I think it is apparent if read in the context of the entire paragraph and not that one sentence which has been extracted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 26 February 2018 10:19 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe this is the section that is problematic in my view and needs to be rephrased: "We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes." It means for me that we support the fact that those programs are cut the way it is suggested in the budget. I don't think we have consensus on this and we should not support, as a SG, the way these programs have been reduced in number (by half or so). I may be wrong though :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think what we encourage, and what we have agreement on, is the need for an assessment on the effectiveneess of the program and only after that assessment, we can agree on the right action to take on it. This can lead to a cut in number of attendees or anything else but we cannot say that at this moment, before that professional assessment is done. And I believe that's what we pushed for at Council level. >>>>>>> Other than that, i fully support the submission of this comment and would like to thank Ayden and everyone for their participation. After reading the comment, it captures everything we discussed and captures what we stand for. As i always say, this is a good informational piece as well for us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >>>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org/), >>>>>>> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/) >>>>>>> Tel: [+243 993810967](tel:+243%20993%20810%20967) >>>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>>>> [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com/) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2018-02-22 6:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is all good for me, except for the same part I opposed at council level. I do not support the downsizing of the fellowship and nextgen by a blind cut with no metrics and debate to balance it out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If that is changed slightly like you did for the council to change that part, I will fully support. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 21 Feb 2018 21:22, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Ayden for the revisions, >>>>>>>>> I want to ask all PC members to review asap the draft for endorsment, the deadline for submission is 2 weeks away and just before PR meeting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2018-02-22 9:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have revised the proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It has not received very many edits or comments just yet. I hope it is on the right track. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > www.ymca.gm > http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm) > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 27 23:48:07 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:48:07 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, I have sent this communication through to the Council on behalf of the Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations. I am sharing this here on our list for two reasons; firstly, to make sure our Councilors are happy with it (it would be embarrassing for any concerns to be flagged on the Council list - please try to resolve them here or with me directly), and secondly, to see if there might be any elements that we would like to borrow and address in our (NCSG) comment on the Budget. Happy to hear your thoughts. Thank you. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 27 February 2018 10:31 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > On behalf of the Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached the latest working draft of our comments on the FY19 Budget for your review. > > As mentioned on our Council call last Thursday, we are seeking to submit these comments on behalf of the Council on 8 March absent any objections from a member of the Council. > > Please can you review the attached file by close of business in your timezone this Friday, 2 March. We will then consider your comments on our call on Monday, 5 March and submit a revised version of this comment for your final review immediately after our call on Monday. Thank you very much. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden F?rdeline > [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN FY19 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments - v 0.8 - AF edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 51197 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN FY19 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments - v 0.8 - AF edits.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 310816 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 28 00:49:30 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:49:30 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] For approval, Art 29WP letter Message-ID: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> Please find attached the draft Article 29 Working Party letter, for approval. cheers Stephanie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 27 February 2018 Art 29 letter.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 38755 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 28 00:52:12 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:52:12 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] For approval, Art 29WP letter In-Reply-To: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I strongly support its submission. Thank you. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 27 February 2018 11:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Please find attached the draft Article 29 Working Party letter, for approval. > > cheers Stephanie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Feb 28 01:26:14 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 20:26:14 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] For approval, Art 29WP letter In-Reply-To: References: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Seconded the approval! Great work! Cheers, Martin On 27 Feb 2018 19:52, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > I strongly support its submission. Thank you. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 27 February 2018 11:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca> wrote: > > Please find attached the draft Article 29 Working Party letter, for > approval. > > cheers Stephanie > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Feb 28 01:30:13 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 18:30:13 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] For approval, Art 29WP letter In-Reply-To: References: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks guys, much appreciated!? I am almost at the point of never wanting to see this topic again... The IWGDPT working paper which is referenced in the document is due out sometime this week. SP On 2018-02-27 18:26, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Seconded the approval! Great work! > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 27 Feb 2018 19:52, "Ayden F?rdeline" > wrote: > > I strongly support its submission. Thank you. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 27 February 2018 11:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > >> Please find attached the draft Article 29 Working Party letter, >> for approval. >> >> cheers Stephanie >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Feb 28 04:48:30 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:48:30 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] For approval, Art 29WP letter In-Reply-To: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I think this letter is brilliant. Tx you, Stephanie, for drafting such an amazing piece! Best, Kathy On 2/27/2018 5:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Please find attached the draft Article 29 Working Party letter, for > approval. > > cheers Stephanie > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Feb 28 05:12:22 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 22:12:22 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] For approval, Art 29WP letter In-Reply-To: References: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Kathy, took me long enough but nice to hear you like it! SP On 2018-02-27 21:48, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > I think this letter is brilliant. Tx you, Stephanie, for drafting such > an amazing piece! > Best, Kathy > > On 2/27/2018 5:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Please find attached the draft Article 29 Working Party letter, for >> approval. >> >> cheers Stephanie >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Wed Feb 28 17:09:40 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 10:09:40 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] For approval, Art 29WP letter In-Reply-To: References: <2b6f5fe6-72c8-d162-ba88-5815f1e505dc@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <9943b747-7e3c-4996-3451-264c7de89306@mail.utoronto.ca> Attached is a cleaned up version which harmonizes our name with no hyphens (not that I like it, but we have cards printed that way so....)? I dated it for tomorrow assuming it will go out then.... I was remiss in not thanking Farzi for starting this draft off, and providing all the background NCSG info, and to Ayden for valuable comments and contributions. Stephanie On 2018-02-27 21:48, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > I think this letter is brilliant. Tx you, Stephanie, for drafting such > an amazing piece! > Best, Kathy > > On 2/27/2018 5:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Please find attached the draft Article 29 Working Party letter, for >> approval. >> >> cheers Stephanie >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 28 February 2018 Art 29 letter.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 38778 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Feb 28 22:19:54 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:19:54 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Travelers for Panama Message-ID: Hi everyone, Who is going to Panama for ICANN 62? We have until 26 March to respond but they asked if we could give the names of confirmed ones already. I am probably not going and will give up my slot (we will do a call for candidate for that). If you have your plans cleared already for Panama, let me know so that I submit your name. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 28 22:23:09 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:23:09 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Travelers for Panama In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, Is this message intended for us or for the EC? Best wishes, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 21:19, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Who is going to Panama for ICANN 62? We have until 26 March to respond but they asked if we could give the names of confirmed ones already. I am probably not going and will give up my slot (we will do a call for candidate for that). > > If you have your plans cleared already for Panama, let me know so that I submit your name. > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Feb 28 22:27:40 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:27:40 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Travelers for Panama In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I thought I was in charge of both groups in terms of travel arrangement :)) My bad. GNSO Sec will reach out to you then. I somehow confused it with intersessional. Forgive the new chair! Farzaneh On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > Is this message intended for us or for the EC? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 21:19, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Who is going to Panama for ICANN 62? We have until 26 March to respond but > they asked if we could give the names of confirmed ones already. I am > probably not going and will give up my slot (we will do a call for > candidate for that). > > > If you have your plans cleared already for Panama, let me know so that I > submit your name. > > > Farzaneh > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 28 22:30:40 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:30:40 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Travelers for Panama In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hehe yes, I think we take orders from the GNSO Chair. She controls the purse strings for us, I believe ;-) Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 21:27, farzaneh badii wrote: > I thought I was in charge of both groups in terms of travel arrangement :)) My bad. GNSO Sec will reach out to you then. I somehow confused it with intersessional. Forgive the new chair! > > Farzaneh > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> Is this message intended for us or for the EC? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 21:19, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Who is going to Panama for ICANN 62? We have until 26 March to respond but they asked if we could give the names of confirmed ones already. I am probably not going and will give up my slot (we will do a call for candidate for that). >>> >>> If you have your plans cleared already for Panama, let me know so that I submit your name. >>> >>> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 28 22:56:33 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:56:33 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Joint CROP Statement Message-ID: There appears to be no movement towards a joint CROP statement being published alongside the signatures of other constituencies or Supporting Organisations. I think that is okay. We've said what we need to say in our comment on the Budget [provided it ultimately receives enough support to be submitted]. Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 28 23:12:11 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:12:11 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Travelers for Panama In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5282cb43-d786-f8aa-5c57-c79ba32c7ef9@mail.utoronto.ca> i will, I think Stephanie On 2018-02-28 15:19, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Who is going to Panama for ICANN 62? We have until 26 March to respond > but they asked if we could give the names of confirmed ones already. I > am probably not going and will give up my slot (we will do a call for > candidate for that). > > > If you have your?plans cleared already for Panama, let me know so > that? I submit your name. > > > 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: