From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan  2 05:58:38 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 22:58:38 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Slightly off-topic] How do we backup this list?
Message-ID: <pYyQdQ4Jxw1Enw0ccsJb8NdjU5ilOSVsPXsHn-Q8aiNPwoA5sjieU2Pngo8oVE-J5Vwc64FXkp41CC7_pjxd264RoBIro1hkKQH-r7sf170=@ferdeline.com>

I know this is not really for us to concern ourselves with -- but someone must.

The Internet Governance Caucus has recently lost 10 years worth of email archives; now,  messages might be recovered from their list if users have stored the messages locally, but this recovery process will be a lot of work and some messages might never be seen again.

So, I was just wondering... how do we backup our list? Do we have it mirrored on another server, by any chance? As it stands - at least for the NCSG PC and NCSG EC list - the pre-2016 archives are on Robin's server, and 2016 onwards are on Tapani's. Is there a way we can have these two servers sync, perhaps, so that our entire list archives are mirrored on two separate servers?

Best wishes, Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180101/86e7cfbd/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan  2 08:09:46 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 01:09:46 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Model
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tnbe4Sg9QizvD5ytLZKfyg713FpuVBLB8QQx3vN_d56w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1EF403jZC_R7zpDIECx0l_7oJ9OJz7cF3k16V5EpIMwdi_9o8ZH6ZvFcJXTp1mmKDWiEk1qFfiy7fHWvgUQK4JhZwuoZAoh2L2MjJtZwLnk=@ferdeline.com>
 <c150Yy0zh_1X8LXmhfhj63g7Gj3xq2YSrbDSvyRgErQ289UjUL4dRYKLwCk0vkp7htmTIbWViWEAwYKzxNX5J_1IwRXbvlhRGKv-83zaK98=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThkNNxQFy4vr_w71dBT0-7Cc+zqDC1m9KA9f=rRZ-bC1kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEux40tnbe4Sg9QizvD5ytLZKfyg713FpuVBLB8QQx3vN_d56w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cCo6p-SJQbPZEG0lwZAKA02ugmZMOZ0q2-BMipYllFZPgJGb915dqeL06BwQGicuJN-5chf4XDwfm93b9cFLXSKC6D6pQP1q6HfX4zM0yEw=@ferdeline.com>

Hi all, hope you had a pleasant fortnight, whatever your end-of-year celebrations might have been. Just bumping this to get it on our radar again. We will need to respect this deadline, as ICANN makes it clear in their blog post that the organisation is looking to settle on a compliance model by the end of January, and can only consider those submitted by the 10th.

? Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Model
> Local Time: 26 December 2017 5:23 PM
> UTC Time: 26 December 2017 16:23
> From: pileleji at ymca.gm
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi Ayden,
> Good day, its holiday period I can only read and give my feedback after 5th January, I hope its okay.
>
> Kind Regards
> Poncelet
>
> On 25 December 2017 at 07:43, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing this,
>> yes we should submit a feedback by 10th January. not really helpful to have such announcement close to winter holidays but anyway.
>> If people can read the document and share some comments in coming days, it would be possible to get a draft by early January.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-12-23 0:11 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> In my previous message, I forgot to insert a hyperlink to that blog post. Here it is: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-plans-for-the-new-year
>>> ?Ayden
>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Model
>>>> Local Time: 22 December 2017 3:09 PM
>>>> UTC Time: 22 December 2017 15:09
>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>
>>>> We need to rapidly get this on our radar.
>>>>
>>>> In this blog post, ICANN claims to have "made it a high priority to find a path forward to ensure compliance with the GDPR while maintaining WHOIS to the greatest extent possible" and is "look[ing] to settle on a compliance model by the end of January".
>>>>
>>>> They indicate, "Before 15 January 2018, we want to publish for Public Comment proposed compliance models... To help us meet this deadline, please submit your feedback before 10 January 2018."
>>>>
>>>> It is probably advisable that we submit some feedback here and do not miss this deadline.
>>>>
>>>> ?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
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org
> [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm)
> www.npoc.org
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180102/0fb1214c/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Jan  3 21:55:59 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:55:59 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting
 Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18
 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <846AED36-A93E-4FE0-9AE6-8482E5DF8129@icann.org>
References: <846AED36-A93E-4FE0-9AE6-8482E5DF8129@icann.org>
Message-ID: <189d9cb5-f817-2e18-d177-195cf1b8dcc4@mail.utoronto.ca>

Hi folks,

I volunteered for the small drafting team at council who are working on 
the development of a new charter for an Implementation Advisory Group 
for the WHOIS conflicts with law.  I was on the IAG for the last trigger 
discussion, and submitted a dissenting opinion.  The DPAs declared this 
whole thing a nonsense, in their last comments on the procedure.  If you 
have any comments on this procedure that you wish me to convey, please 
let me know....next meeting is tomorrow.

Cheers Stephanie



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team 
Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 
2017 at 20:00 UTC
Date: 	Wed, 3 Jan 2018 19:34:01 +0000
From: 	Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
To: 	Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, Nathalie Peregrine 
<nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Heather Forrest 
<haforrestesq at gmail.com>, kdrazek at verisign.com <kdrazek at verisign.com>, 
icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight 
<michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
CC: 	gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>



Dear All,

Best wishes for 2018!

In preparation for tomorrow?s meeting, please find below as a reminder 
the notes & action items from the last meeting. Attached you will find 
the draft charter as originally circulated. If you already have any 
feedback / input from your respective groups that you would like to 
share ahead of the meeting, please share with this list.

Best regards,

Marika

*From: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
*Date: *Monday, December 18, 2017 at 22:03
*To: *Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Heather Forrest 
<haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, 
icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight 
<michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, 
Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
*Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team 
Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 
2017 at 20:00 UTC

Dear All,

Further, please find some informal notes and actions items that staff 
collected during the course of the meeting. The recording of course is 
the authoritative record.

Best,

Steve

----------------------

*GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts on  Monday 18 18 December 2017 at 2000 UTC*




Notes/Action Items:

-- Heather to serve as facilitator/champion for this process, but in a neutral way.

-- Keith happy to hold pen and can rely on Marc Anderson for IAG context.

-- What's process for the draft charter? Staff role to develop? What's available now is the standard template with key questions flagged and possible options.  Should take care in drafting charter as it could serve as precedent for future review efforts.

-- The procedure is a matter of implementation No standard procedure for reviewing an implementation of GNSO adopted resolutions.

-- Look forward to getting input from Michele and Stephanie.

-- Discussion could begin on this call, help ensure that this effort does not repeat inability to reach conclusion the first go around.

-- Keep scope and timeline narrow

-- What's the current situation? What is the subsequent group expected to accomplish? 
*Marika Konings: 
*the procedure has been updated with a new trigger, per the recommendations of the previous IAG. 


-- The recommendations of the subsequent group would be in reference to an already implemented policy. The recommendations would be treated differently than a PDP then,.

-- Question: is the implementation, or suggested modifications, consistent with the underlying policy recommendations? Or is additional policy work needed?

-- Most focus has been on the trigger. Some review of the subsequent steps after triggering may be important.

-- This process will help provide guidance for the future to understand roles of community and staff.

-- How does GDPR fit into this exercise as it relates to Whois? The current trigger does seem to fit under GDPR, but is an unattractive option. 


     -- There is GDPR-specific relief (e.g., relief against compliance). Problem of the day.

     -- And there is relief related to ANY local privacy law, more generically. The trigger(s) being explored are not GDPR specific.

-- The scope of this review, is it just limited to focusing on Whois? It seems to be the case: 
*Marika Konings: 
*From the underlying policy recommendations: In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via Whois, ICANN should.......

-- The trigger of going to a national regulator does not seem to be working. Explore an additional trigger(s) to initiate waiver process.

-- Is there evidence of the trigger not working? Or are CP just unwilling to write to national regulators to ask if they are violating local law? It seems to require an admission of guilt to get the waiver.

-- There is some interest in reviewing the underlying the policy, which would require a different process. That might be what has caused this topic to linger on Council list.

-- Public comment provides possible issues with alternative trigger. Seems to imply that you must already be in violation to utilize waiver.

-- Could limit the scope of what is reviewed (e.g., the public comment and Akram letter). And also note that if policy issues are uncovered, that they would be resolved through another mechanism.

-- Whatever recommendations this IAG would put forth to Council, the Council would need to confirm that they are not inconsistent with underlying policy recommendations.

-- Could group also explore other ideas beyond previous IAG? Should avoid just repeating the outcomes of previous IAG.

-- How to narrow scope? Start with public comments?

*Keith Drazek: 
*(1) Review current implementation; (2) re-consider previous triggers not agreed to; (3) consider other possible triggers not previously considered; (4) review everything based on existing public comments.

-- Other areas of focus: objectives and goals, membership (seems like it should include those outside Council), chair selection (could follow from group composition), group formation, dependencies, and dissolution (also follow from group/review team composition), decision-making (also dependent).

-- Key questions are scope and composition. Take these to respective SG/Cs.

-- Agreement that composition is paramount and drives many other elements (chair, staff support). Will the group operate more like an IRT or WG? Who serves as the lead (e.g., staff or community)?

-- Hopefully table for January meeting (20 Jan document and motions deadline).

*ACTION: Take draft charter to respective SG/Cs and convene again in early January?*

*ACTION: Set up Doodle for early Jan or week of the 8th.*

*From: *Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
*Date: *Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:55 PM
*To: *Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" 
<kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie 
Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight 
<michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, 
Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
*Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
*Subject: *Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter 
ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 
20:00 UTC

Dear all,

Please find below the AC recording, attendance and AC chat transcript of 
the GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter 
concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts scheduled on 
Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC

*AC Recording*: https://participate.icann.org/p2q6sp8ir36/ 
<https://participate.icann.org/p2q6sp8ir36/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=da98784bd396b38e57f1d982b189a0a8f647aa1f7e8f2c7c1c2566602aaf4d91>

*Attendance:* Pam Little, Keith Drazek, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady,

*Apology:* Michele Neylon

*Staff:*Marika Konings, Steve Chan, Nathalie Peregrine

*AC Chat*:

   Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Council Drafting 
Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for 
Handling Whois Conflicts on  Monday 18  December 2017 at 2000 UTC

   Nathalie Peregrine:Public Comment: Revised ICANN Procedure for 
Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law: Process and Next Steps: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dlaw-2D2017-2D05-2D03-2Den&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=adugQauUKQvuUEMdEec1VcDBdyG9osdhkqinwHG6ad0&e=

   Nathalie Peregrine:Letter from Akram Atallah to GNSO Council re the 
Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_atallah-2Dto-2Dbladel-2Det-2Dal-2D01aug17-2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=ynH32qa5Y9sFgNk_mo6bzIjPiNm0dL5Sc3B1RWP0UJo&e=

   Pam Little:Hi Everyone

   Marika Konings:Staff could put this into the form of a google doc and 
have you provide comments / edits on the different sections?

   Marika Konings:Note that an update on this topic has also been 
foreseen for Thursday's Council meeting that would allow you to flag 
certain items for Council input, which may help inform your subsequent 
deliberations and decision on some of the items outlined in the document.

   Pam Little:I will try to dial in by phone

   Pam Little:Please carry out for a moment

   Nathalie Peregrine:You need to activate your AC mic, by clicking on 
the telehpne icon at the top of the toolbar

   Nathalie Peregrine:this will also allow you to dial out to yourself 
should you prefer to connect via the phone.

   Marika Konings:the procedure has been updated with a new trigger, per 
the recommendations of the previous IAG.

   Marika Konings:my understanding is that the procedure is intended for 
individual registries / registrars, while the current discussion seems 
to deal with almost all contracted parties

   Marika Konings:I guess the question is also whether GDPR is 
considered a 'local law'?

   Keith Drazek:I'm in Adobe now. Apologies

   Heather Forrest:Great Keith - thanks

   Marika Konings:I believe the underlying policy only focuses on WHOIS

   Heather Forrest:I understood that we were dealing specifically with 
WHOIS conflicts?

   Keith Drazek:It's focused on WHOIS and conflicts with national 
privacy laws, correct?

   Marika Konings:From the underlying policy recommendations: In order 
to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national 
mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the 
ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of 
personal data via Whois, ICANN should.......

   Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika

   Marika Konings:so it is limited to WHOIS

   Keith Drazek:Yes

   Pam Little:That's what I thought too

   Marika Konings:For those interested in reviewing the original report 
that forms the basis for the procedure: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_tf-2Dfinal-2Drpt-2D25oct05.htm&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=FztMCfR9oT5btckkoo2gqrwFNOiZ9GJ3kDs5ChhSVhg&e=

   Paul McGrady:Got it.  Retracting my prior comment about how broad 
this is.

   Heather Forrest:Thanks, Marika, for that link to the original report. 
I intend to re-read that this week.

   Heather Forrest:+1 Keith re focus on trigger

   Heather Forrest:It's in drifting discussion away from the trigger 
that we've gotten bogged down on this in Council for the past year and a 
half or so... this is NOT about the underlying policy

   Pam Little:Thank you all for the comments and clarifications.

   Keith Drazek:Totally agree, this is not GDPR-specific at all.

   Marika Konings:If you review the report of public comments, you'll 
find some feedback on possible issues with the alternative trigger.

   Keith Drazek:I don't think we want to re-open the policy.

   Keith Drazek:The CPH thinks that the policy is solid, it's just the 
current implementation needs adjustment.

   Heather Forrest:@Marika - good suggestion to ask the group to work 
with the public comments

   Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika, very helpful.

   Keith Drazek:(1) Review current implementation; (2) re-consider 
previous triggers not agreed to; (3) consider other possible triggers 
not previously considered; (4) review everything based on existing 
public comments.

   Marika Konings:we may need to further emphasize in the charter that 
the trigger is just the first step in the procedure, there are quite a 
few steps that follow to make sure that everyone is clear on that.

   Keith Drazek:Agreed Heather re composition

   Marika Konings:note there are also a couple of options you may want 
to consider for composition / representation

   Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika, that's important for the 
precedent-setting nature of our work.

   Keith Drazek:@Marika, are those options in the document staff 
developed? Apologies for not knowing

   Heather Forrest:OK - let's focus our attention for charter on (1) 
scope/objective and (2) composition, and take input from our respective 
SG/Cs on these two key points

   Keith Drazek:Let's do early the week of the 8th

   Keith Drazek:+1 Paul

   Heather Forrest:I agree Keith - doc deadline should be around the 20th

   Marika Konings:is it helpful to put this in a google doc format to 
facilitate your input or you prefer to share feedback via email?

   Nathalie Peregrine:Doc deadline is the 20th jan.

   Marika Konings:makes sense :-)

   Nathalie Peregrine:Of course.

   Keith Drazek:Sounds like a plan. Thanks to staff for prepping the 
document that I need to review more carefully.

   Keith Drazek:Thanks Heather!

   Pam Little:Thanks everyone. Bye now

   Marika Konings:thanks all

   Heather Forrest:Thanks everyone

Kind regards,

Nathalie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180103/185a78e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WHOIS Procedure IAG - Draft Charter - 12 December 2017.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 124702 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180103/185a78e2/attachment.docx>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Thu Jan  4 00:32:49 2018
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:32:49 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments on Jurisdiction
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvAd_+5NoKb=ZucVe7LQTv7a_ZmLXYQbEOH93UDtusgGdA@mail.gmail.com>

Tatiana and I drafted this public comment on jurisdiction which we will
send  to the NCSG list shortly (by tomorrow). Here is our public comment
response:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit?usp=sharing

Find the call here:
 https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en>

The deadline is 14 January  It can remain on the mailing list for awhile (
I believe 2 days before the deadline) then we finalize it on PC list.

We really need your collaboration for finalizing so please stay tuned and
pay attention to our emails.




Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180103/283a3368/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Thu Jan  4 00:38:28 2018
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 19:38:28 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments on Jurisdiction
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvAd_+5NoKb=ZucVe7LQTv7a_ZmLXYQbEOH93UDtusgGdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAd_+5NoKb=ZucVe7LQTv7a_ZmLXYQbEOH93UDtusgGdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F9C5B624-9D9F-4B6F-89F4-0F4D994CCCA3@gmail.com>

Looking at it right now.


> On 3 Jan 2018, at 19:32, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Tatiana and I drafted this public comment on jurisdiction which we will send  to the NCSG list shortly (by tomorrow). Here is our public comment response:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit?usp=sharing>
> 
> Find the call here:?https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en>
> 
> The deadline is 14 January  It can remain on the mailing list for awhile ( I believe 2 days before the deadline) then we finalize it on PC list.
> 
> We really need your collaboration for finalizing so please stay tuned and pay attention to our emails. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180103/32a42d4b/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Jan  4 01:15:55 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:15:55 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments on Jurisdiction
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvAd_+5NoKb=ZucVe7LQTv7a_ZmLXYQbEOH93UDtusgGdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAd_+5NoKb=ZucVe7LQTv7a_ZmLXYQbEOH93UDtusgGdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmLDwVqRHidhuZN4gqqHsfVQa5t7CTbk9JtoR+6hRxd3g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Farzaneh,

thanks for sharing this,
we will start reviewing the draft comment.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-04 7:32 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:

> Tatiana and I drafted this public comment on jurisdiction which we will
> send  to the NCSG list shortly (by tomorrow). Here is our public comment
> response:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btU
> toAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Find the call here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/
> recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en>
>
> The deadline is 14 January  It can remain on the mailing list for awhile (
> I believe 2 days before the deadline) then we finalize it on PC list.
>
> We really need your collaboration for finalizing so please stay tuned and
> pay attention to our emails.
>
>
>
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180104/62a56e30/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Jan  4 04:50:14 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:50:14 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments on Jurisdiction
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvAd_+5NoKb=ZucVe7LQTv7a_ZmLXYQbEOH93UDtusgGdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAd_+5NoKb=ZucVe7LQTv7a_ZmLXYQbEOH93UDtusgGdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Q1kfc8DMYr1ECWeqb-G9GIDn44hw6jKvnMs6BWjVr-HeleBYJsWDkJ9sIzUkqnRlKYwVkDx_I8nZRAhux03TCWigBcAshS_qmEYUbLBWpps=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks for taking the lead on this, Farzaneh and Tanya. I have made some suggested edits to the document now; a mixture of stylistic and substantive. Hopefully I have not entered in any misinformation - if I have, please reject the edit of course, as I do not track this issue too closely. For that reason I have refrained from rewording the recommendation on the Choice of Law/Venue Provision. I was wondering if we would not take a stronger stance in favour of one of the report's proposals. I thought the 'menu approach' was quite a good one, certainly better than a California/fixed-law / status quo approach?

? Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments on Jurisdiction
> Local Time: 3 January 2018 11:32 PM
> UTC Time: 3 January 2018 22:32
> From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Tatiana and I drafted this public comment on jurisdiction which we will send  to the NCSG list shortly (by tomorrow). Here is our public comment response:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Find the call here:[ https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en)
>
> The deadline is 14 January  It can remain on the mailing list for awhile ( I believe 2 days before the deadline) then we finalize it on PC list.
>
> We really need your collaboration for finalizing so please stay tuned and pay attention to our emails.
>
> Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180103/240350c2/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Thu Jan  4 17:07:49 2018
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:07:49 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
Message-ID: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>

Dear all,

Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The call
for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en.

Our draft is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing

I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
remains open for comments from our membership, too.

Cheers,

Tanya



From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Jan  4 17:23:32 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 10:23:32 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now, making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.

?Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The call
> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en.
>
> Our draft is here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180104/f19f4713/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Thu Jan  4 18:23:09 2018
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:23:09 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>

Tati and Ayden,
	I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a consultant, is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see in a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough, the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
	Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as they can to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we for sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to notice, point out and document. 
	I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more demanding and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size and role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman itself. 

Cheers,
Mart?n


> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now, making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
> 
> ?Ayden  
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> 
>> Dear all,
>>  
>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The call
>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>  
>> Our draft is here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>  
>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>  
>> Cheers,
>>  
>> Tanya
>>  
>> 
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180104/c72b0001/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Fri Jan  5 00:24:58 2018
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 23:24:58 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>

Martin,

We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds and
mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many
disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve
divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial, or
they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on
commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but what
we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law
firm.

As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be gained.
As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.

As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can argue
over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier to cancel
someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to end a
contract with an organization.

Farzaneh

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tati and Ayden,
> I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a consultant, is
> going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of arbitrators,
> law firm or other organizations with the background to do this are heavily
> business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder model, DNS and Internet
> Governance in general. It is far more easy to detect an in-house ombudsman
> misbehaving than an outsider you only see in a room or in an email. Even if
> we found someone big and neutral enough, the big ones will always have
>  more access to them than the res of us.
> Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as they can to
> bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we for sure
> can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the inside
> of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman role and
> who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot hide behind
> appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to notice, point out
> and document.
> I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more demanding
> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size and
> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand for
> more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules and
> procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman itself.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>
> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now,
> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also
> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
>
> ?Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The call
> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en.
>
> Our draft is here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-
> 2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> ------------------------------
>
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180104/50ce5dce/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Fri Jan  5 00:38:29 2018
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 19:38:29 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>

Farzi,
	My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the skills to do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if they do family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather social problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for instance, or consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions are usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still applies.
	And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a consultant (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the US. It is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary reasons that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with your own employees. We have better chances on controlling the accountability and transparency of a full time in house employee than an external institution that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and providers coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies usually get differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools, universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms and companies. 
	I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we have with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the current situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.

As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this as an honest opinion before closing the matter.

Cheers,
Mart?n


> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Martin,
> 
> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds and mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial, or they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on  commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but what we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law firm. 
> 
> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be gained. As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN. 
> 
> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier to cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to end a contract with an organization.  
> 
> Farzaneh
> 
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Tati and Ayden,
> 	I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a consultant, is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see in a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough, the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
> 	Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as they can to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we for sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to notice, point out and document. 
> 	I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more demanding and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size and role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman itself. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
> 
> 
>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now, making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
>> 
>> ?Ayden  
>> 
>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>>  
>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The call
>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>>  
>>> Our draft is here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>  
>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>>  
>>> Cheers,
>>>  
>>> Tanya
>>>  
>>> 
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180104/3b601afd/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Fri Jan  5 10:44:15 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:44:15 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear colleagues,

First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work and for
having taken the time to go through the material and provide through
this comment valuable inputs.

I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office rather than a
person for now and see how this resolves issues of independance and
transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external organization if
we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid here.

Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
- financial: i think hiring an external group/organization will cost
ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to do the same
job. I may not be right on this but if this is true, remember we have
been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments. I don't want
us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a scheme that
will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.

- I consider going from an individual to an external office is a big
move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing what an
in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our worries and
concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step and later on
(if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).

- I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team rather than
an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the community would
benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing this office
if need be, rather than attempting to go through a process of firing
an entire organization, which can be hard.

I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as the one of
not allowing this Office to be present at social events. I think this
can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It is just a
matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to see them at
GEM parties :)

Please consider these as personal opinions, with my limited law
knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.

May I suggest we open this to the membership by January 7th or so to
allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And then we can
finalize it?

Best regards,
Arsene

2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
> Farzi,
> 	My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and
> arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the skills to
> do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if they do
> family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather social
> problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for instance, or
> consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions are
> usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still
> applies.
> 	And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a consultant
> (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the US. It
> is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary reasons
> that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term
> contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and
> gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with your
> own employees. We have better chances on controlling the accountability and
> transparency of a full time in house employee than an external institution
> that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and providers
> coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle
> information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies usually get
> differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools,
> universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms and
> companies.
> 	I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution
> eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we have
> with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I
> would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the current
> situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
>
> As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this as an
> honest opinion before closing the matter.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>
>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds and
>> mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many
>> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve
>> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial, or
>> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on
>> commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but what
>> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law
>> firm.
>>
>> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be gained.
>> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
>>
>> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can
>> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier to
>> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to end
>> a contract with an organization.
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Tati and Ayden,
>> 	I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a consultant,
>> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of
>> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do
>> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder
>> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to
>> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see in
>> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough,
>> the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
>> 	Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as they can
>> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we for
>> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the
>> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman
>> role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot
>> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to notice,
>> point out and document.
>> 	I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more demanding
>> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size and
>> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand
>> for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules
>> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman itself.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>>
>>
>>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now,
>>> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also
>>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
>>>
>>> ?Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
>>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The
>>>> call
>>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>>>
>>>> Our draft is here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>
>>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
>>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
>>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
>>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Tanya
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
------------------------
**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>)


From farellfolly at gmail.com  Fri Jan  5 11:20:31 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:20:31 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxf2By5m0G7vGQo+CuFG3Xef8se=9hikU6QN7heADTfmZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Internet ecosystem changes so rapidly and regulatory  affairs are very
complex, too. Beware that even having an office would not prevent ICANN to
hire consultant or external law firm from time to time, since they will be
some topic where the office will not have sufficient expertise.

Also having only the option to contract with external law firm (as needed
or always) without having an office as liaison between both parties won't
be efficient : a light office (few people) will be needed to make requests,
manage information and knowledge etc....

I am tempted to say that one law firm is not a good solution for the long
term time since they may lack some expertise and become excessively
expensive for simple requests. Therefore, I would recommend a light office
composed of few subject matter experts that can hire external consultant or
law firm when needed and strongly justified (here there is another
challenge : bureaucracy but better try this in-between solution before the
radical one, i.e putting all the keys in an external hand)



Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

Le 5 janv. 2018 09:44, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> a ?crit :

Dear colleagues,

First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work and for
having taken the time to go through the material and provide through
this comment valuable inputs.

I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office rather than a
person for now and see how this resolves issues of independance and
transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external organization if
we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid here.

Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
- financial: i think hiring an external group/organization will cost
ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to do the same
job. I may not be right on this but if this is true, remember we have
been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments. I don't want
us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a scheme that
will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.

- I consider going from an individual to an external office is a big
move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing what an
in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our worries and
concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step and later on
(if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).

- I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team rather than
an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the community would
benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing this office
if need be, rather than attempting to go through a process of firing
an entire organization, which can be hard.

I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as the one of
not allowing this Office to be present at social events. I think this
can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It is just a
matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to see them at
GEM parties :)

Please consider these as personal opinions, with my limited law
knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.

May I suggest we open this to the membership by January 7th or so to
allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And then we can
finalize it?

Best regards,
Arsene

2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
> Farzi,
>       My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and
> arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the skills
to
> do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if they
do
> family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather
social
> problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for instance, or
> consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions are
> usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still
> applies.
>       And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a
consultant
> (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the US.
It
> is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary reasons
> that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term
> contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and
> gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with your
> own employees. We have better chances on controlling the accountability
and
> transparency of a full time in house employee than an external institution
> that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and providers
> coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle
> information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies usually
get
> differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools,
> universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms and
> companies.
>       I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution
> eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we have
> with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I
> would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the
current
> situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
>
> As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this as
an
> honest opinion before closing the matter.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>
>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds and
>> mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many
>> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve
>> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial, or
>> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on
>> commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but what
>> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law
>> firm.
>>
>> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be gained.
>> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
>>
>> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can
>> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier to
>> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to end
>> a contract with an organization.
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Tati and Ayden,
>>      I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a
consultant,
>> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of
>> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do
>> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder
>> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to
>> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see in
>> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough,
>> the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
>>      Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as they
can
>> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we for
>> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the
>> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman
>> role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot
>> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to
notice,
>> point out and document.
>>      I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more
demanding
>> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size
and
>> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand
>> for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules
>> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman itself.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mart?n
>>
>>
>>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now,
>>> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also
>>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
>>>
>>> ?Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
>>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The
>>>> call
>>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>>>
>>>> Our draft is here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-
2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-
2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>
>>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
>>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
>>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
>>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Tanya
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>
>


--
------------------------
**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>)
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180105/b7160707/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Jan  5 13:41:52 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 20:41:52 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxf2By5m0G7vGQo+CuFG3Xef8se=9hikU6QN7heADTfmZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmy960RdW20hf7jtgf3Ks5wA=Wk8jY65fV6ALp4aJa8yg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

reading the comment itself, I think it gives a clear rationale for having
an office instead of an individual and highlighting the required
independence of ombudsman.
by its mission and function, it cannot be something in-house or done by an
ICANN staff because there will be dependence toward the organization and
conflict of interest.  I do believe the draft the exact term of "insulate".
The same concern raised when ICANN CEO created a new position for complaint
officers filled by an ICANN staff supposedly handling complaints against
her colleagues!!!

I didn't see that we proposed specifics such consultant, law firm etc in
our comment (did I miss that?) but just an external organization which
gives enough room for implementation.
I don't also think that will increase substantially the cost or budget (we
can check the current budgeting). by the office, I think we only mean a
unit with enough resourcing and funding (ensuring again its independence
and sustainability) to do it works but not creating a new organization per
se.

there were problems with one ombudsman (in fact with the first one I think)
and due to his mission, his power and also the possible CCWG recommendation
to expand more his tasks and role,  we need to be careful here. We cannot
dismiss the need for independence.

I would also caution about the narrative that ICANN is unique,
multistakeholder organization etc which is used by ICANN to dismiss
concerns or reject some recommendations. we are talking here about
practices and recommendations implemented in other spaces and learning from
them. I don't think an ombudsman has to know about DNS or ICANN PDPs but
having expertise in mediating and resolving conflicts, investigating,
applying policies like anti-harassment. not knowing the actors would help
to prevent bias toward any specific group.

Best,

Rafik


2018-01-05 18:20 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:

> Dear all,
>
> Internet ecosystem changes so rapidly and regulatory  affairs are very
> complex, too. Beware that even having an office would not prevent ICANN to
> hire consultant or external law firm from time to time, since they will be
> some topic where the office will not have sufficient expertise.
>
> Also having only the option to contract with external law firm (as needed
> or always) without having an office as liaison between both parties won't
> be efficient : a light office (few people) will be needed to make requests,
> manage information and knowledge etc....
>
> I am tempted to say that one law firm is not a good solution for the long
> term time since they may lack some expertise and become excessively
> expensive for simple requests. Therefore, I would recommend a light office
> composed of few subject matter experts that can hire external consultant or
> law firm when needed and strongly justified (here there is another
> challenge : bureaucracy but better try this in-between solution before the
> radical one, i.e putting all the keys in an external hand)
>
>
>
> Regards
> @__f_f__
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
> ________________________________
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le 5 janv. 2018 09:44, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> a ?crit :
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work and for
> having taken the time to go through the material and provide through
> this comment valuable inputs.
>
> I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office rather than a
> person for now and see how this resolves issues of independance and
> transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external organization if
> we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
> suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid here.
>
> Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
> - financial: i think hiring an external group/organization will cost
> ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to do the same
> job. I may not be right on this but if this is true, remember we have
> been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments. I don't want
> us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a scheme that
> will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.
>
> - I consider going from an individual to an external office is a big
> move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing what an
> in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our worries and
> concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step and later on
> (if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).
>
> - I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team rather than
> an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the community would
> benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing this office
> if need be, rather than attempting to go through a process of firing
> an entire organization, which can be hard.
>
> I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as the one of
> not allowing this Office to be present at social events. I think this
> can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It is just a
> matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to see them at
> GEM parties :)
>
> Please consider these as personal opinions, with my limited law
> knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.
>
> May I suggest we open this to the membership by January 7th or so to
> allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And then we can
> finalize it?
>
> Best regards,
> Arsene
>
> 2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
> > Farzi,
> >       My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and
> > arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the skills
> to
> > do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if they
> do
> > family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather
> social
> > problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for instance,
> or
> > consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions are
> > usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still
> > applies.
> >       And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a
> consultant
> > (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the US.
> It
> > is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary reasons
> > that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term
> > contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and
> > gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with
> your
> > own employees. We have better chances on controlling the accountability
> and
> > transparency of a full time in house employee than an external
> institution
> > that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and
> providers
> > coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle
> > information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies usually
> get
> > differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools,
> > universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms and
> > companies.
> >       I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution
> > eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we have
> > with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I
> > would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the
> current
> > situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
> >
> > As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this as
> an
> > honest opinion before closing the matter.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mart?n
> >
> >
> >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Martin,
> >>
> >> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds
> and
> >> mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many
> >> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve
> >> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial,
> or
> >> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on
> >> commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but
> what
> >> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law
> >> firm.
> >>
> >> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be
> gained.
> >> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
> >>
> >> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can
> >> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier
> to
> >> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to
> end
> >> a contract with an organization.
> >>
> >> Farzaneh
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> >> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> Tati and Ayden,
> >>      I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a
> consultant,
> >> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of
> >> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do
> >> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder
> >> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to
> >> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see
> in
> >> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough,
> >> the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
> >>      Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as
> they can
> >> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we
> for
> >> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the
> >> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman
> >> role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot
> >> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to
> notice,
> >> point out and document.
> >>      I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more
> demanding
> >> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size
> and
> >> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand
> >> for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules
> >> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman
> itself.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Mart?n
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> >>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now,
> >>> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also
> >>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
> >>>
> >>> ?Ayden
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
> >>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
> >>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
> >>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
> >>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work
> Stream
> >>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The
> >>>> call
> >>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
> >>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
> >>>>
> >>>> Our draft is here:
> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzw
> jjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgz
> wjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
> >>>>
> >>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
> >>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
> >>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The
> deadline
> >>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
> >>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Tanya
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **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-mande
> la-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-lea
> dership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-
> programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-lea
> dership-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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180105/42a444fe/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Jan  5 14:45:35 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 21:45:35 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council
 Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday
 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <189d9cb5-f817-2e18-d177-195cf1b8dcc4@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <846AED36-A93E-4FE0-9AE6-8482E5DF8129@icann.org>
 <189d9cb5-f817-2e18-d177-195cf1b8dcc4@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkLSxcEQzHPHD8+rTxxE8MXJvf30BfkGYag5On02ndAPg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks,
if I am not mistaking the drafting group is tasked to provide a charter for
a possible new IAG to handle the comments receive and see how to
accommodate that with the previous implementation. so I guess the focus
would be in term of the process here, the charter list 3 options. all are
open compared to the previous IAG iteration. however, I would be concerned
with CCWG and GNSO review models due to the question of representation from
SG/C compared to an open model. the 2 first models have appointed
representatives which may give a weight in term of decision-making. I have
less concerns with Chair selection models, while I won't support IRT one
with GDD manager as chair.
I don't see any specific concern with the mission and scope.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-04 4:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> Hi folks,
>
> I volunteered for the small drafting team at council who are working on
> the development of a new charter for an Implementation Advisory Group for
> the WHOIS conflicts with law.  I was on the IAG for the last trigger
> discussion, and submitted a dissenting opinion.  The DPAs declared this
> whole thing a nonsense, in their last comments on the procedure.  If you
> have any comments on this procedure that you wish me to convey, please let
> me know....next meeting is tomorrow.
>
> Cheers Stephanie
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter
> ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at
> 20:00 UTC
> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 19:34:01 +0000
> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>
> To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> <steve.chan at icann.org>, Nathalie
> Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>,
> Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> <haforrestesq at gmail.com>,
> kdrazek at verisign.com <kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com>,
> icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> <icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie
> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight
> <michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little
> <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com> <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
> CC: gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Best wishes for 2018!
>
>
>
> In preparation for tomorrow?s meeting, please find below as a reminder the
> notes & action items from the last meeting. Attached you will find the
> draft charter as originally circulated. If you already have any feedback /
> input from your respective groups that you would like to share ahead of the
> meeting, please share with this list.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, December 18, 2017 at 22:03
> *To: *Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> <kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists
> <icannlists at winston.com> <icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com>, Pam
> Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com> <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, Marika
> Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team
> Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December
> 2017 at 20:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Further, please find some informal notes and actions items that staff
> collected during the course of the meeting. The recording of course is the
> authoritative record.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
>
> *GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts on  Monday 18 18 December 2017 at 2000 UTC*
>
>
>
>
> Notes/Action Items:
>
> -- Heather to serve as facilitator/champion for this
> process, but in a neutral way.
>
> -- Keith happy to hold pen and can rely on Marc Anderson for IAG context.
>
> -- What's process for the draft charter? Staff role to
> develop? What's available now is the standard template with
> key questions flagged and possible options.  Should
> take care in drafting charter as it could serve as
> precedent for future review efforts.
>
> -- The procedure is a matter of implementation No standard
> procedure for reviewing an implementation of GNSO adopted resolutions.
>
> -- Look forward to getting input from Michele and Stephanie.
>
> -- Discussion could begin on this call, help ensure that
> this effort does not repeat inability to reach conclusion
> the first go around.
>
> -- Keep scope and timeline narrow
>
> -- What's the current situation? What is the subsequent group expected to
> accomplish? *Marika Konings: *the procedure has been updated
> with a new trigger, per the recommendations of the previous IAG.
>
> -- The recommendations of the subsequent group would be in
> reference to an already implemented policy. The recommendations would be
> treated differently than a PDP then,.
>
> -- Question: is the implementation, or suggested
> modifications, consistent with the underlying policy
> recommendations? Or is additional policy work needed?
>
> -- Most focus has been on the trigger. Some review of the
> subsequent steps after triggering may be important.
>
> -- This process will help provide guidance for the
> future to understand roles of community and staff.
>
> -- How does GDPR fit into this exercise as it relates
> to Whois? The current trigger does seem to fit under GDPR,
> but is an unattractive option.
>
>     -- There is GDPR-specific relief (e.g., relief against
> compliance). Problem of the day.
>
>     -- And there is relief related to ANY local privacy
> law, more generically. The trigger(s) being explored are
> not GDPR specific.
>
> -- The scope of this review, is it just limited to
> focusing on Whois? It seems to be the case: *Marika Konings: *
> From the underlying policy recommendations: In order to facilitate
> reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy
> laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the
> ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and
> distribution of personal data via Whois, ICANN should.......
>
> -- The trigger of going to a national regulator does not
> seem to be working. Explore an additional trigger(s) to
> initiate waiver process.
>
> -- Is there evidence of the trigger not working? Or are
> CP just unwilling to write to national regulators to ask if
> they are violating local law? It seems to require an
> admission of guilt to get the waiver.
>
> -- There is some interest in reviewing the underlying the
> policy, which would require a different process. That might
> be what has caused this topic to linger on Council list.
>
> -- Public comment provides possible issues with
> alternative trigger. Seems to imply that you must already
> be in violation to utilize waiver.
>
> -- Could limit the scope of what is reviewed (e.g., the
> public comment and Akram letter). And also note that if policy issues are
> uncovered, that they would be resolved through another mechanism.
>
> -- Whatever recommendations this IAG would put forth to
> Council, the Council would need to confirm that they are
> not inconsistent with underlying policy recommendations.
>
> -- Could group also explore other ideas beyond previous
> IAG? Should avoid just repeating the outcomes of previous IAG.
>
> -- How to narrow scope? Start with public comments?
>
> *Keith Drazek: *(1) Review current implementation; (2)
> re-consider previous triggers not agreed to; (3) consider
> other possible triggers not previously considered; (4)
> review everything based on existing public comments.
>
> -- Other areas of focus: objectives and goals, membership (seems like it
> should include those outside Council), chair selection (
> could follow from group composition), group formation, dependencies, and
> dissolution (also follow from group/review team composition)
> , decision-making (also dependent).
>
> -- Key questions are scope and composition. Take these
> to respective SG/Cs.
>
> -- Agreement that composition is paramount and drives many
> other elements (chair, staff support). Will the group
> operate more like an IRT or WG? Who serves as the lead (e.
> g., staff or community)?
>
> -- Hopefully table for January meeting (20 Jan
> document and motions deadline).
>
>
> *ACTION: Take draft charter to respective SG/Cs and convene again in early January?*
>
> *ACTION: Set up Doodle for early Jan or week of the 8th.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:55 PM
> *To: *Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> <haforrestesq at gmail.com>,
> "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> <kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
> <icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight
> <michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little
> <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com> <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, Marika Konings
> <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>, Steve Chan
> <steve.chan at icann.org> <steve.chan at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter
> ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at
> 20:00 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find below the AC recording, attendance and AC chat transcript of
> the GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning
> ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts scheduled on Monday 18
> December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
>
>
>
> *AC Recording*: https://participate.icann.org/p2q6sp8ir36/
> <https://participate.icann.org/p2q6sp8ir36/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=da98784bd396b38e57f1d982b189a0a8f647aa1f7e8f2c7c1c2566602aaf4d91>
>
>
>
> *Attendance:* Pam Little, Keith Drazek, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady,
>
> *Apology:* Michele Neylon
>
> *Staff:* Marika Konings, Steve Chan, Nathalie Peregrine
>
>
>
> *AC Chat*:
>
>   Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Council Drafting Team
> call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling
> Whois Conflicts on  Monday 18  December 2017 at 2000 UTC
>
>   Nathalie Peregrine:Public Comment: Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling
> WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law: Process and Next Steps:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-
> 2Dcomments_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dlaw-2D2017-2D05-2D03-2Den&d=DwICaQ&c=
> FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_
> FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=
> 5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=
> adugQauUKQvuUEMdEec1VcDBdyG9osdhkqinwHG6ad0&e=
>
>   Nathalie Peregrine:Letter from Akram Atallah to GNSO Council re the
> Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_
> correspondence_atallah-2Dto-2Dbladel-2Det-2Dal-2D01aug17-
> 2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_
> FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=
> 5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=ynH32qa5Y9sFgNk_
> mo6bzIjPiNm0dL5Sc3B1RWP0UJo&e=
>
>   Pam Little:Hi Everyone
>
>   Marika Konings:Staff could put this into the form of a google doc and
> have you provide comments / edits on the different sections?
>
>   Marika Konings:Note that an update on this topic has also been foreseen
> for Thursday's Council meeting that would allow you to flag certain items
> for Council input, which may help inform your subsequent deliberations and
> decision on some of the items outlined in the document.
>
>   Pam Little:I will try to dial in by phone
>
>   Pam Little:Please carry out for a moment
>
>   Nathalie Peregrine:You need to activate your AC mic, by clicking on the
> telehpne icon at the top of the toolbar
>
>   Nathalie Peregrine:this will also allow you to dial out to yourself
> should you prefer to connect via the phone.
>
>   Marika Konings:the procedure has been updated with a new trigger, per
> the recommendations of the previous IAG.
>
>   Marika Konings:my understanding is that the procedure is intended for
> individual registries / registrars, while the current discussion seems to
> deal with almost all contracted parties
>
>   Marika Konings:I guess the question is also whether GDPR is considered a
> 'local law'?
>
>   Keith Drazek:I'm in Adobe now. Apologies
>
>   Heather Forrest:Great Keith - thanks
>
>   Marika Konings:I believe the underlying policy only focuses on WHOIS
>
>   Heather Forrest:I understood that we were dealing specifically with
> WHOIS conflicts?
>
>   Keith Drazek:It's focused on WHOIS and conflicts with national privacy
> laws, correct?
>
>   Marika Konings:From the underlying policy recommendations: In order to
> facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory
> privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract
> regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via
> Whois, ICANN should.......
>
>   Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika
>
>   Marika Konings:so it is limited to WHOIS
>
>   Keith Drazek:Yes
>
>   Pam Little:That's what I thought too
>
>   Marika Konings:For those interested in reviewing the original report
> that forms the basis for the procedure: https://urldefense.
> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_
> tf-2Dfinal-2Drpt-2D25oct05.htm&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6
> sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_
> uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=
> FztMCfR9oT5btckkoo2gqrwFNOiZ9GJ3kDs5ChhSVhg&e=
>
>   Paul McGrady:Got it.  Retracting my prior comment about how broad this
> is.
>
>   Heather Forrest:Thanks, Marika, for that link to the original report. I
> intend to re-read that this week.
>
>   Heather Forrest:+1 Keith re focus on trigger
>
>   Heather Forrest:It's in drifting discussion away from the trigger that
> we've gotten bogged down on this in Council for the past year and a half or
> so... this is NOT about the underlying policy
>
>   Pam Little:Thank you all for the comments and clarifications.
>
>   Keith Drazek:Totally agree, this is not GDPR-specific at all.
>
>   Marika Konings:If you review the report of public comments, you'll find
> some feedback on possible issues with the alternative trigger.
>
>   Keith Drazek:I don't think we want to re-open the policy.
>
>   Keith Drazek:The CPH thinks that the policy is solid, it's just the
> current implementation needs adjustment.
>
>   Heather Forrest:@Marika - good suggestion to ask the group to work with
> the public comments
>
>   Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika, very helpful.
>
>   Keith Drazek:(1) Review current implementation; (2) re-consider previous
> triggers not agreed to; (3) consider other possible triggers not previously
> considered; (4) review everything based on existing public comments.
>
>   Marika Konings:we may need to further emphasize in the charter that the
> trigger is just the first step in the procedure, there are quite a few
> steps that follow to make sure that everyone is clear on that.
>
>   Keith Drazek:Agreed Heather re composition
>
>   Marika Konings:note there are also a couple of options you may want to
> consider for composition / representation
>
>   Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika, that's important for the precedent-setting
> nature of our work.
>
>   Keith Drazek:@Marika, are those options in the document staff
> developed? Apologies for not knowing
>
>   Heather Forrest:OK - let's focus our attention for charter on (1)
> scope/objective and (2) composition, and take input from our respective
> SG/Cs on these two key points
>
>   Keith Drazek:Let's do early the week of the 8th
>
>   Keith Drazek:+1 Paul
>
>   Heather Forrest:I agree Keith - doc deadline should be around the 20th
>
>   Marika Konings:is it helpful to put this in a google doc format to
> facilitate your input or you prefer to share feedback via email?
>
>   Nathalie Peregrine:Doc deadline is the 20th jan.
>
>   Marika Konings:makes sense :-)
>
>   Nathalie Peregrine:Of course.
>
>   Keith Drazek:Sounds like a plan. Thanks to staff for prepping the
> document that I need to review more carefully.
>
>   Keith Drazek:Thanks Heather!
>
>   Pam Little:Thanks everyone. Bye now
>
>   Marika Konings:thanks all
>
>   Heather Forrest:Thanks everyone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Nathalie
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180105/28608989/attachment.htm>

From lists at nickshorey.com  Fri Jan  5 17:01:02 2018
From: lists at nickshorey.com (Nick Shorey)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:01:02 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments on Jurisdiction
In-Reply-To: <Q1kfc8DMYr1ECWeqb-G9GIDn44hw6jKvnMs6BWjVr-HeleBYJsWDkJ9sIzUkqnRlKYwVkDx_I8nZRAhux03TCWigBcAshS_qmEYUbLBWpps=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAN1qJvAd_+5NoKb=ZucVe7LQTv7a_ZmLXYQbEOH93UDtusgGdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Q1kfc8DMYr1ECWeqb-G9GIDn44hw6jKvnMs6BWjVr-HeleBYJsWDkJ9sIzUkqnRlKYwVkDx_I8nZRAhux03TCWigBcAshS_qmEYUbLBWpps=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAJf3Mf3j4uL2utcFG9kLTFfRONzZK6hdo7Phc2YCwZ5xJ4UnSQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for sharing Farzaneh, and to both yourself and Tatiana for preparing
this response. I've added two comments to the document, one a suggestion
for a minor tweak to the language in section 4; and the other a question to
clarify our recommendation in section 6.

I haven't been following this topic, and am not a subject-matter expert,
however reading the recommendations on OFAC got me wondering whether there
still remains a risk of relying on US licences, and whether there are any
multilateral / international exemption licences that might exist which
override US law and provide greater resiliency? Did the sub-group consider
/ research this?

Kind regards,

Nick

*Nick Shorey*
Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
Email: lists at nickshorey.com
Skype: nick.shorey
Twitter: @nickshorey
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
Web: www.nickshorey.com

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Thanks for taking the lead on this, Farzaneh and Tanya. I have made some
> suggested edits to the document now; a mixture of stylistic and
> substantive. Hopefully I have not entered in any misinformation - if I
> have, please reject the edit of course, as I do not track this issue too
> closely. For that reason I have refrained from rewording the recommendation
> on the Choice of Law/Venue Provision. I was wondering if we would not take
> a stronger stance in favour of one of the report's proposals. I thought the
> 'menu approach' was quite a good one, certainly better than a
> California/fixed-law / status quo approach?
>
> ? Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments on Jurisdiction
> Local Time: 3 January 2018 11:32 PM
> UTC Time: 3 January 2018 22:32
> From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Tatiana and I drafted this public comment on jurisdiction which we will
> send  to the NCSG list shortly (by tomorrow). Here is our public comment
> response:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btU
> toAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Find the call here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/
> recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-2017-11-14-en>
>
> The deadline is 14 January  It can remain on the mailing list for awhile (
> I believe 2 days before the deadline) then we finalize it on PC list.
>
> We really need your collaboration for finalizing so please stay tuned and
> pay attention to our emails.
>
>
>
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180105/f5c5275d/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Jan  5 19:03:43 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:03:43 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council
 Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday
 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkLSxcEQzHPHD8+rTxxE8MXJvf30BfkGYag5On02ndAPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <846AED36-A93E-4FE0-9AE6-8482E5DF8129@icann.org>
 <189d9cb5-f817-2e18-d177-195cf1b8dcc4@mail.utoronto.ca>,
 <CAH5sThkLSxcEQzHPHD8+rTxxE8MXJvf30BfkGYag5On02ndAPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <YQXPR01MB0470944F723D0025F4F6A1A0B21C0@YQXPR01MB0470.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

THanks, this is very helpful.

cheers STephanie

PS meeting yesterday was a non-event, too many absentees

________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: January 5, 2018 7:45:35 AM
To: Stephanie Perrin
Cc: ncsg-pc
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks,
if I am not mistaking the drafting group is tasked to provide a charter for a possible new IAG to handle the comments receive and see how to accommodate that with the previous implementation. so I guess the focus would be in term of the process here, the charter list 3 options. all are open compared to the previous IAG iteration. however, I would be concerned with CCWG and GNSO review models due to the question of representation from SG/C compared to an open model. the 2 first models have appointed representatives which may give a weight in term of decision-making. I have less concerns with Chair selection models, while I won't support IRT one with GDD manager as chair.
I don't see any specific concern with the mission and scope.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-04 4:55 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:

Hi folks,

I volunteered for the small drafting team at council who are working on the development of a new charter for an Implementation Advisory Group for the WHOIS conflicts with law.  I was on the IAG for the last trigger discussion, and submitted a dissenting opinion.  The DPAs declared this whole thing a nonsense, in their last comments on the procedure.  If you have any comments on this procedure that you wish me to convey, please let me know....next meeting is tomorrow.

Cheers Stephanie


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
Date:   Wed, 3 Jan 2018 19:34:01 +0000
From:   Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
To:     Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org><mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com><mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>, kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com><mailto:icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com><mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
CC:     gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>



Dear All,



Best wishes for 2018!



In preparation for tomorrow?s meeting, please find below as a reminder the notes & action items from the last meeting. Attached you will find the draft charter as originally circulated. If you already have any feedback / input from your respective groups that you would like to share ahead of the meeting, please share with this list.



Best regards,



Marika



From: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org><mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 22:03
To: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com><mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com"<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com><mailto:icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com><mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: Re: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC



Dear All,



Further, please find some informal notes and actions items that staff collected during the course of the meeting. The recording of course is the authoritative record.



Best,

Steve



----------------------



GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts on  Monday 18 18 December 2017 at 2000 UTC




Notes/Action Items:

-- Heather to serve as facilitator/champion for this process, but in a neutral way.

-- Keith happy to hold pen and can rely on Marc Anderson for IAG context.

-- What's process for the draft charter? Staff role to develop? What's available now is the standard template with key questions flagged and possible options.  Should take care in drafting charter as it could serve as precedent for future review efforts.

-- The procedure is a matter of implementation No standard procedure for reviewing an implementation of GNSO adopted resolutions.

-- Look forward to getting input from Michele and Stephanie.

-- Discussion could begin on this call, help ensure that this effort does not repeat inability to reach conclusion the first go around.

-- Keep scope and timeline narrow

-- What's the current situation? What is the subsequent group expected to accomplish? Marika Konings: the procedure has been updated with a new trigger, per the recommendations of the previous IAG.

-- The recommendations of the subsequent group would be in reference to an already implemented policy. The recommendations would be treated differently than a PDP then,.

-- Question: is the implementation, or suggested modifications, consistent with the underlying policy recommendations? Or is additional policy work needed?

-- Most focus has been on the trigger. Some review of the subsequent steps after triggering may be important.

-- This process will help provide guidance for the future to understand roles of community and staff.

-- How does GDPR fit into this exercise as it relates to Whois? The current trigger does seem to fit under GDPR, but is an unattractive option.

    -- There is GDPR-specific relief (e.g., relief against compliance). Problem of the day.

    -- And there is relief related to ANY local privacy law, more generically. The trigger(s) being explored are not GDPR specific.

-- The scope of this review, is it just limited to focusing on Whois? It seems to be the case: Marika Konings: From the underlying policy recommendations: In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via Whois, ICANN should.......

-- The trigger of going to a national regulator does not seem to be working. Explore an additional trigger(s) to initiate waiver process.

-- Is there evidence of the trigger not working? Or are CP just unwilling to write to national regulators to ask if they are violating local law? It seems to require an admission of guilt to get the waiver.

-- There is some interest in reviewing the underlying the policy, which would require a different process. That might be what has caused this topic to linger on Council list.

-- Public comment provides possible issues with alternative trigger. Seems to imply that you must already be in violation to utilize waiver.

-- Could limit the scope of what is reviewed (e.g., the public comment and Akram letter). And also note that if policy issues are uncovered, that they would be resolved through another mechanism.

-- Whatever recommendations this IAG would put forth to Council, the Council would need to confirm that they are not inconsistent with underlying policy recommendations.

-- Could group also explore other ideas beyond previous IAG? Should avoid just repeating the outcomes of previous IAG.

-- How to narrow scope? Start with public comments?

Keith Drazek: (1) Review current implementation; (2) re-consider previous triggers not agreed to; (3) consider other possible triggers not previously considered; (4) review everything based on existing public comments.

-- Other areas of focus: objectives and goals, membership (seems like it should include those outside Council), chair selection (could follow from group composition), group formation, dependencies, and dissolution (also follow from group/review team composition), decision-making (also dependent).

-- Key questions are scope and composition. Take these to respective SG/Cs.

-- Agreement that composition is paramount and drives many other elements (chair, staff support). Will the group operate more like an IRT or WG? Who serves as the lead (e.g., staff or community)?

-- Hopefully table for January meeting (20 Jan document and motions deadline).

ACTION: Take draft charter to respective SG/Cs and convene again in early January?

ACTION: Set up Doodle for early Jan or week of the 8th.







From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org><mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:55 PM
To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com><mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com"<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com> <kdrazek at verisign.com><mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com><mailto:icannlists at winston.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com><mailto:michele at blacknight.com>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com><mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org><mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: Attendance and recording: GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC



Dear all,



Please find below the AC recording, attendance and AC chat transcript of the GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts scheduled on Monday 18 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC



AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2q6sp8ir36/<https://participate.icann.org/p2q6sp8ir36/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=da98784bd396b38e57f1d982b189a0a8f647aa1f7e8f2c7c1c2566602aaf4d91>



Attendance: Pam Little, Keith Drazek, Heather Forrest, Paul McGrady,

Apology: Michele Neylon

Staff: Marika Konings, Steve Chan, Nathalie Peregrine



AC Chat:

  Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the GNSO Council Drafting Team call to discuss the draft Charter concerning ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts on  Monday 18  December 2017 at 2000 UTC

  Nathalie Peregrine:Public Comment: Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law: Process and Next Steps: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_whois-2Dprivacy-2Dlaw-2D2017-2D05-2D03-2Den&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=adugQauUKQvuUEMdEec1VcDBdyG9osdhkqinwHG6ad0&e=

  Nathalie Peregrine:Letter from Akram Atallah to GNSO Council re the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_atallah-2Dto-2Dbladel-2Det-2Dal-2D01aug17-2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=ynH32qa5Y9sFgNk_mo6bzIjPiNm0dL5Sc3B1RWP0UJo&e=

  Pam Little:Hi Everyone

  Marika Konings:Staff could put this into the form of a google doc and have you provide comments / edits on the different sections?

  Marika Konings:Note that an update on this topic has also been foreseen for Thursday's Council meeting that would allow you to flag certain items for Council input, which may help inform your subsequent deliberations and decision on some of the items outlined in the document.

  Pam Little:I will try to dial in by phone

  Pam Little:Please carry out for a moment

  Nathalie Peregrine:You need to activate your AC mic, by clicking on the telehpne icon at the top of the toolbar

  Nathalie Peregrine:this will also allow you to dial out to yourself should you prefer to connect via the phone.

  Marika Konings:the procedure has been updated with a new trigger, per the recommendations of the previous IAG.

  Marika Konings:my understanding is that the procedure is intended for individual registries / registrars, while the current discussion seems to deal with almost all contracted parties

  Marika Konings:I guess the question is also whether GDPR is considered a 'local law'?

  Keith Drazek:I'm in Adobe now. Apologies

  Heather Forrest:Great Keith - thanks

  Marika Konings:I believe the underlying policy only focuses on WHOIS

  Heather Forrest:I understood that we were dealing specifically with WHOIS conflicts?

  Keith Drazek:It's focused on WHOIS and conflicts with national privacy laws, correct?

  Marika Konings:From the underlying policy recommendations: In order to facilitate reconciliation of any conflicts between local/national mandatory privacy laws or regulations and applicable provisions of the ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via Whois, ICANN should.......

  Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika

  Marika Konings:so it is limited to WHOIS

  Keith Drazek:Yes

  Pam Little:That's what I thought too

  Marika Konings:For those interested in reviewing the original report that forms the basis for the procedure: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_tf-2Dfinal-2Drpt-2D25oct05.htm&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=5xenFICRdRkSUfvjRkSPDPi2nqmjNR9z40DOTbddJVM&s=FztMCfR9oT5btckkoo2gqrwFNOiZ9GJ3kDs5ChhSVhg&e=

  Paul McGrady:Got it.  Retracting my prior comment about how broad this is.

  Heather Forrest:Thanks, Marika, for that link to the original report. I intend to re-read that this week.

  Heather Forrest:+1 Keith re focus on trigger

  Heather Forrest:It's in drifting discussion away from the trigger that we've gotten bogged down on this in Council for the past year and a half or so... this is NOT about the underlying policy

  Pam Little:Thank you all for the comments and clarifications.

  Keith Drazek:Totally agree, this is not GDPR-specific at all.

  Marika Konings:If you review the report of public comments, you'll find some feedback on possible issues with the alternative trigger.

  Keith Drazek:I don't think we want to re-open the policy.

  Keith Drazek:The CPH thinks that the policy is solid, it's just the current implementation needs adjustment.

  Heather Forrest:@Marika - good suggestion to ask the group to work with the public comments

  Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika, very helpful.

  Keith Drazek:(1) Review current implementation; (2) re-consider previous triggers not agreed to; (3) consider other possible triggers not previously considered; (4) review everything based on existing public comments.

  Marika Konings:we may need to further emphasize in the charter that the trigger is just the first step in the procedure, there are quite a few steps that follow to make sure that everyone is clear on that.

  Keith Drazek:Agreed Heather re composition

  Marika Konings:note there are also a couple of options you may want to consider for composition / representation

  Keith Drazek:Thanks Marika, that's important for the precedent-setting nature of our work.

  Keith Drazek:@Marika, are those options in the document staff developed? Apologies for not knowing

  Heather Forrest:OK - let's focus our attention for charter on (1) scope/objective and (2) composition, and take input from our respective SG/Cs on these two key points

  Keith Drazek:Let's do early the week of the 8th

  Keith Drazek:+1 Paul

  Heather Forrest:I agree Keith - doc deadline should be around the 20th

  Marika Konings:is it helpful to put this in a google doc format to facilitate your input or you prefer to share feedback via email?

  Nathalie Peregrine:Doc deadline is the 20th jan.

  Marika Konings:makes sense :-)

  Nathalie Peregrine:Of course.

  Keith Drazek:Sounds like a plan. Thanks to staff for prepping the document that I need to review more carefully.

  Keith Drazek:Thanks Heather!

  Pam Little:Thanks everyone. Bye now

  Marika Konings:thanks all

  Heather Forrest:Thanks everyone











Kind regards,



Nathalie



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180105/1b6f0fa4/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Jan  6 04:38:43 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 21:38:43 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmy960RdW20hf7jtgf3Ks5wA=Wk8jY65fV6ALp4aJa8yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxf2By5m0G7vGQo+CuFG3Xef8se=9hikU6QN7heADTfmZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmy960RdW20hf7jtgf3Ks5wA=Wk8jY65fV6ALp4aJa8yg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZVp-sgX-Yy6bU_cy4AJ1zXtIMk5C6IIVUQxvvA_KE36JA2uSEMe_-Vc-kN2b0A0UNlnbWgbZoalBHeeydmUzMA1MOTXLuLnwYopjd-RETQA=@ferdeline.com>

Rafik, many thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I fully agree with your remarks. ICANN org is not as unique as it likes to think and we should not be re-inventing the wheel when we do not have to.

Many private sector entities do not have staff Ombuds. I recently had an issue with a major Dutch airline, and when I wanted to escalate the matter further, I could contact an outsourced 'consumer advocate'. In the UK, I can escalate my complaint about this airline to my choice of 3 different, independent consumer advocates who are paid by the airline and are empowered to investigate the merits of my complaint. And they speak my native language. Outsourcing these functions makes sense to me. They have their own counsel on staff, they offer localized services, and we benefit from economies of scale, as they can bring the diversity we want without ICANN needing to employ full-time staff, as ICANN only pays for billed hours.

We know from the Ombudsman's reports and investigations that most complaints that he (and it has always been a he to-date) deals with are mainly interpersonal disputes. These are not investigations which require substantial technical knowledge; there are mediation providers who specialise in conflict resolution and resolving these very issues.

To Ars?ne's comment about budget, to quote a critic of Margaret Thatcher, she knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. We should not make the same mistake. We should not sacrifice the independence of the Ombuds service - an extremely important accountability function for the Empowered Community - in order to save a few dollars (Euros, francs, pesos... insert your currency's unit here).

I would also like to propose the insertion of the following language into our comment:

"The Ombuds office must have a budget funded at a level sufficient to carry out its identified purposes, and will account for its funds directly to the Empowered Community. An inadequately funded office will not be able to perform the functions required by the bylaws, and thus will lack true independence."

Another point. In the past, it has been brought to my attention that the Ombudsman has used ICANN's general counsel when investigating matters. In my view, the Ombuds Office must have the authority to hire independent legal counsel to enforce their powers so that they do not have to rely on ICANN's general counsel, who may have a conflict of interest. I imagine this was covered by the subgroup, but I couldn't find anything just now through a quick ctrl+f search of the draft recommendations. Does anyone know if this matter (empowering the Ombuds Office to hire independent, external counsel) was resolved already by the subgroup?

Many thanks,

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
> Local Time: 5 January 2018 12:41 PM
> UTC Time: 5 January 2018 11:41
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi,
>
> reading the comment itself, I think it gives a clear rationale for having an office instead of an individual and highlighting the required independence of ombudsman.
> by its mission and function, it cannot be something in-house or done by an ICANN staff because there will be dependence toward the organization and conflict of interest.  I do believe the draft the exact term of "insulate". The same concern raised when ICANN CEO created a new position for complaint officers filled by an ICANN staff supposedly handling complaints against her colleagues!!!
>
> I didn't see that we proposed specifics such consultant, law firm etc in our comment (did I miss that?) but just an external organization which gives enough room for implementation.
> I don't also think that will increase substantially the cost or budget (we can check the current budgeting). by the office, I think we only mean a unit with enough resourcing and funding (ensuring again its independence and sustainability) to do it works but not creating a new organization per se.
>
> there were problems with one ombudsman (in fact with the first one I think) and due to his mission, his power and also the possible CCWG recommendation to expand more his tasks and role,  we need to be careful here. We cannot dismiss the need for independence.
>
> I would also caution about the narrative that ICANN is unique, multistakeholder organization etc which is used by ICANN to dismiss concerns or reject some recommendations. we are talking here about practices and recommendations implemented in other spaces and learning from them. I don't think an ombudsman has to know about DNS or ICANN PDPs but having expertise in mediating and resolving conflicts, investigating, applying policies like anti-harassment. not knowing the actors would help to prevent bias toward any specific group.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-05 18:20 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Internet ecosystem changes so rapidly and regulatory  affairs are very complex, too. Beware that even having an office would not prevent ICANN to hire consultant or external law firm from time to time, since they will be some topic where the office will not have sufficient expertise.
>>
>> Also having only the option to contract with external law firm (as needed or always) without having an office as liaison between both parties won't be efficient : a light office (few people) will be needed to make requests, manage information and knowledge etc....
>>
>> I am tempted to say that one law firm is not a good solution for the long term time since they may lack some expertise and become excessively expensive for simple requests. Therefore, I would recommend a light office composed of few subject matter experts that can hire external consultant or law firm when needed and strongly justified (here there is another challenge : bureaucracy but better try this in-between solution before the radical one, i.e putting all the keys in an external hand)
>>
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>> ________________________________
>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>
>> Le 5 janv. 2018 09:44, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> a ?crit :
>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work and for
>>> having taken the time to go through the material and provide through
>>> this comment valuable inputs.
>>>
>>> I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office rather than a
>>> person for now and see how this resolves issues of independance and
>>> transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external organization if
>>> we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
>>> suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid here.
>>>
>>> Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
>>> - financial: i think hiring an external group/organization will cost
>>> ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to do the same
>>> job. I may not be right on this but if this is true, remember we have
>>> been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments. I don't want
>>> us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a scheme that
>>> will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.
>>>
>>> - I consider going from an individual to an external office is a big
>>> move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing what an
>>> in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our worries and
>>> concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step and later on
>>> (if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).
>>>
>>> - I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team rather than
>>> an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the community would
>>> benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing this office
>>> if need be, rather than attempting to go through a process of firing
>>> an entire organization, which can be hard.
>>>
>>> I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as the one of
>>> not allowing this Office to be present at social events. I think this
>>> can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It is just a
>>> matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to see them at
>>> GEM parties :)
>>>
>>> Please consider these as personal opinions, with my limited law
>>> knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.
>>>
>>> May I suggest we open this to the membership by January 7th or so to
>>> allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And then we can
>>> finalize it?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Arsene
>>>
>>> 2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Farzi,
>>>>       My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and
>>>> arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the skills to
>>>> do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if they do
>>>> family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather social
>>>> problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for instance, or
>>>> consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions are
>>>> usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still
>>>> applies.
>>>>       And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a consultant
>>>> (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the US. It
>>>> is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary reasons
>>>> that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term
>>>> contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and
>>>> gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with your
>>>> own employees. We have better chances on controlling the accountability and
>>>> transparency of a full time in house employee than an external institution
>>>> that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and providers
>>>> coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle
>>>> information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies usually get
>>>> differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools,
>>>> universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms and
>>>> companies.
>>>>       I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution
>>>> eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we have
>>>> with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I
>>>> would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the current
>>>> situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this as an
>>>> honest opinion before closing the matter.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mart?n
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds and
>>>>> mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many
>>>>> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve
>>>>> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial, or
>>>>> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on
>>>>> commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but what
>>>>> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law
>>>>> firm.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be gained.
>>>>> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can
>>>>> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier to
>>>>> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to end
>>>>> a contract with an organization.
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>>>>> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Tati and Ayden,
>>>>>      I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a consultant,
>>>>> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of
>>>>> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do
>>>>> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder
>>>>> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to
>>>>> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see in
>>>>> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough,
>>>>> the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
>>>>>      Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as they can
>>>>> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we for
>>>>> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the
>>>>> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman
>>>>> role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot
>>>>> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to notice,
>>>>> point out and document.
>>>>>      I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more demanding
>>>>> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size and
>>>>> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand
>>>>> for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules
>>>>> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mart?n
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now,
>>>>>> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also
>>>>>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>>>>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>>>>>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
>>>>>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The
>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our draft is here:
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
>>>>>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
>>>>>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
>>>>>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>>>>>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tanya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>>>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------
>>> **Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
>>> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
>>> Tel: [+243 993810967](tel:%2B243%20993810967)
>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>>>
>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
>>> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
>>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
>>> & Mexico
>>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
>>> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
>>> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN'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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180105/185d14c7/attachment.htm>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Sat Jan  6 06:16:44 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 05:16:44 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <ZVp-sgX-Yy6bU_cy4AJ1zXtIMk5C6IIVUQxvvA_KE36JA2uSEMe_-Vc-kN2b0A0UNlnbWgbZoalBHeeydmUzMA1MOTXLuLnwYopjd-RETQA=@ferdeline.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxf2By5m0G7vGQo+CuFG3Xef8se=9hikU6QN7heADTfmZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmy960RdW20hf7jtgf3Ks5wA=Wk8jY65fV6ALp4aJa8yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZVp-sgX-Yy6bU_cy4AJ1zXtIMk5C6IIVUQxvvA_KE36JA2uSEMe_-Vc-kN2b0A0UNlnbWgbZoalBHeeydmUzMA1MOTXLuLnwYopjd-RETQA=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxf3jE-06vxOQ1QFxHq7_qb-JSNx9b9M=wE4oeHxEVgGnA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ayden,

I particularly admire the illustration about the dutch airline company. It
makes sense to me to think about such an approach for better diversity,
flexibility and trust.


Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

Le 6 janv. 2018 3:38 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> a ?crit :

> Rafik, many thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I fully
> agree with your remarks. ICANN org is not as unique as it likes to think
> and we should not be re-inventing the wheel when we do not have to.
>
> Many private sector entities do not have staff Ombuds. I recently had an
> issue with a major Dutch airline, and when I wanted to escalate the matter
> further, I could contact an outsourced 'consumer advocate'. In the UK, I
> can escalate my complaint about this airline to my choice of 3 different,
> independent consumer advocates who are paid by the airline and are
> empowered to investigate the merits of my complaint. And they speak my
> native language. Outsourcing these functions makes sense to me. They have
> their own counsel on staff, they offer localized services, and we benefit
> from economies of scale, as they can bring the diversity we want without
> ICANN needing to employ full-time staff, as ICANN only pays for billed
> hours.
>
> We know from the Ombudsman's reports and investigations that most
> complaints that he (and it has always been a he to-date) deals with are
> mainly interpersonal disputes. These are not investigations which require
> substantial technical knowledge; there are mediation providers who
> specialise in conflict resolution and resolving these very issues.
>
> To Ars?ne's comment about budget, to quote a critic of Margaret Thatcher,
> she knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. We should not
> make the same mistake. We should not sacrifice the independence of the
> Ombuds service - an extremely important accountability function for the
> Empowered Community - in order to save a few dollars (Euros, francs,
> pesos... insert your currency's unit here).
>
> I would also like to propose the insertion of the following language into
> our comment:
>
> "The Ombuds office must have a budget funded at a level sufficient to
> carry out its identified purposes, and will account for its funds directly
> to the Empowered Community. An inadequately funded office will not be able
> to perform the functions required by the bylaws, and thus will lack true
> independence."
>
> Another point. In the past, it has been brought to my attention that the
> Ombudsman has used ICANN's general counsel when investigating matters. In
> my view, the Ombuds Office must have the authority to hire independent
> legal counsel to enforce their powers so that they do not have to rely on
> ICANN's general counsel, who may have a conflict of interest. I imagine
> this was covered by the subgroup, but I couldn't find anything just now
> through a quick ctrl+f search of the draft recommendations. Does anyone
> know if this matter (empowering the Ombuds Office to hire independent,
> external counsel) was resolved already by the subgroup?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Ayden
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
> Local Time: 5 January 2018 12:41 PM
> UTC Time: 5 January 2018 11:41
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi,
>
> reading the comment itself, I think it gives a clear rationale for having
> an office instead of an individual and highlighting the required
> independence of ombudsman.
> by its mission and function, it cannot be something in-house or done by an
> ICANN staff because there will be dependence toward the organization and
> conflict of interest.  I do believe the draft the exact term of "insulate".
> The same concern raised when ICANN CEO created a new position for complaint
> officers filled by an ICANN staff supposedly handling complaints against
> her colleagues!!!
>
> I didn't see that we proposed specifics such consultant, law firm etc in
> our comment (did I miss that?) but just an external organization which
> gives enough room for implementation.
> I don't also think that will increase substantially the cost or budget (we
> can check the current budgeting). by the office, I think we only mean a
> unit with enough resourcing and funding (ensuring again its independence
> and sustainability) to do it works but not creating a new organization per
> se.
>
> there were problems with one ombudsman (in fact with the first one I
> think) and due to his mission, his power and also the possible CCWG
> recommendation to expand more his tasks and role,  we need to be careful
> here. We cannot dismiss the need for independence.
>
> I would also caution about the narrative that ICANN is unique,
> multistakeholder organization etc which is used by ICANN to dismiss
> concerns or reject some recommendations. we are talking here about
> practices and recommendations implemented in other spaces and learning from
> them. I don't think an ombudsman has to know about DNS or ICANN PDPs but
> having expertise in mediating and resolving conflicts, investigating,
> applying policies like anti-harassment. not knowing the actors would help
> to prevent bias toward any specific group.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2018-01-05 18:20 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Internet ecosystem changes so rapidly and regulatory  affairs are very
>> complex, too. Beware that even having an office would not prevent ICANN to
>> hire consultant or external law firm from time to time, since they will be
>> some topic where the office will not have sufficient expertise.
>>
>> Also having only the option to contract with external law firm (as needed
>> or always) without having an office as liaison between both parties won't
>> be efficient : a light office (few people) will be needed to make requests,
>> manage information and knowledge etc....
>>
>> I am tempted to say that one law firm is not a good solution for the long
>> term time since they may lack some expertise and become excessively
>> expensive for simple requests. Therefore, I would recommend a light office
>> composed of few subject matter experts that can hire external consultant or
>> law firm when needed and strongly justified (here there is another
>> challenge : bureaucracy but better try this in-between solution before the
>> radical one, i.e putting all the keys in an external hand)
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>> ________________________________
>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>
>> Le 5 janv. 2018 09:44, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> a
>> ?crit :
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work and for
>> having taken the time to go through the material and provide through
>> this comment valuable inputs.
>>
>> I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office rather than a
>> person for now and see how this resolves issues of independance and
>> transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external organization if
>> we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
>> suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid here.
>>
>> Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
>> - financial: i think hiring an external group/organization will cost
>> ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to do the same
>> job. I may not be right on this but if this is true, remember we have
>> been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments. I don't want
>> us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a scheme that
>> will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.
>>
>> - I consider going from an individual to an external office is a big
>> move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing what an
>> in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our worries and
>> concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step and later on
>> (if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).
>>
>> - I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team rather than
>> an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the community would
>> benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing this office
>> if need be, rather than attempting to go through a process of firing
>> an entire organization, which can be hard.
>>
>> I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as the one of
>> not allowing this Office to be present at social events. I think this
>> can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It is just a
>> matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to see them at
>> GEM parties :)
>>
>> Please consider these as personal opinions, with my limited law
>> knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.
>>
>> May I suggest we open this to the membership by January 7th or so to
>> allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And then we can
>> finalize it?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>> 2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Farzi,
>> >       My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and
>> > arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the
>> skills to
>> > do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if
>> they do
>> > family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather
>> social
>> > problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for instance,
>> or
>> > consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions
>> are
>> > usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still
>> > applies.
>> >       And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a
>> consultant
>> > (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the
>> US. It
>> > is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary
>> reasons
>> > that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term
>> > contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and
>> > gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with
>> your
>> > own employees. We have better chances on controlling the accountability
>> and
>> > transparency of a full time in house employee than an external
>> institution
>> > that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and
>> providers
>> > coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle
>> > information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies
>> usually get
>> > differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools,
>> > universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms and
>> > companies.
>> >       I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution
>> > eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we have
>> > with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I
>> > would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the
>> current
>> > situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
>> >
>> > As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this
>> as an
>> > honest opinion before closing the matter.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Mart?n
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Martin,
>> >>
>> >> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds
>> and
>> >> mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many
>> >> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve
>> >> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial,
>> or
>> >> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on
>> >> commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but
>> what
>> >> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law
>> >> firm.
>> >>
>> >> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be
>> gained.
>> >> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
>> >>
>> >> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can
>> >> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier
>> to
>> >> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to
>> end
>> >> a contract with an organization.
>> >>
>> >> Farzaneh
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>> >> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> Tati and Ayden,
>> >>      I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a
>> consultant,
>> >> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of
>> >> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do
>> >> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder
>> >> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to
>> >> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see
>> in
>> >> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough,
>> >> the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
>> >>      Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as
>> they can
>> >> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we
>> for
>> >> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the
>> >> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman
>> >> role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot
>> >> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to
>> notice,
>> >> point out and document.
>> >>      I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more
>> demanding
>> >> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size
>> and
>> >> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand
>> >> for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more
>> rules
>> >> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman
>> itself.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Mart?n
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> >>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document
>> now,
>> >>> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and
>> also
>> >>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
>> >>>
>> >>> ?Ayden
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> -------- Original Message --------
>> >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>> >>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>> >>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>> >>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>> >>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dear all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work
>> Stream
>> >>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The
>> >>>> call
>> >>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>> >>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Our draft is here:
>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzw
>> jjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgz
>> wjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would
>> be
>> >>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
>> >>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The
>> deadline
>> >>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>> >>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tanya
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> >>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **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-mande
>> la-washington.html>
>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-lea
>> dership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-p
>> rogramme/Past-Ambassadors>
>> & Mexico
>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-lea
>> dership-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-fell
>> owship-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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180106/f6159db5/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Sat Jan  6 21:08:06 2018
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 20:08:06 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxf3jE-06vxOQ1QFxHq7_qb-JSNx9b9M=wE4oeHxEVgGnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxf2By5m0G7vGQo+CuFG3Xef8se=9hikU6QN7heADTfmZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmy960RdW20hf7jtgf3Ks5wA=Wk8jY65fV6ALp4aJa8yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZVp-sgX-Yy6bU_cy4AJ1zXtIMk5C6IIVUQxvvA_KE36JA2uSEMe_-Vc-kN2b0A0UNlnbWgbZoalBHeeydmUzMA1MOTXLuLnwYopjd-RETQA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxf3jE-06vxOQ1QFxHq7_qb-JSNx9b9M=wE4oeHxEVgGnA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6ce352b9-cce9-a278-9185-3ad67127dd98@mpicc.de>

Dear all,

thanks a lot for your feedback. I will send the clean document to the
NCSG list tomorrow - let's see what the membership input is.

Thanks to all of you - I am happy we have great discussions.

Cheers,

Tanya


On 06/01/18 05:16, Farell Folly wrote:
> Hello Ayden,
>
> I particularly admire the illustration about the dutch airline
> company. It makes sense to me to think about such an approach for
> better diversity, flexibility and trust.
>
>
> Regards
> @__f_f__
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
> ________________________________
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le?6 janv. 2018 3:38 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> a ?crit?:
>
>     Rafik, many thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I
>     fully agree with your remarks. ICANN org is not as unique as it
>     likes to think and we should not be re-inventing the wheel when we
>     do not have to.
>
>     Many private sector entities do not have staff Ombuds. I recently
>     had an issue with a major Dutch airline, and when I wanted to
>     escalate the matter further, I could contact an outsourced
>     'consumer advocate'. In the UK, I can escalate my complaint about
>     this airline to my choice of 3 different, independent consumer
>     advocates who are paid by the airline and are empowered to
>     investigate the merits of my complaint. And they speak my native
>     language. Outsourcing these functions makes sense to me. They have
>     their own counsel on staff, they offer localized services, and we
>     benefit from economies of scale, as they can bring the diversity
>     we want without ICANN needing to employ full-time staff, as ICANN
>     only pays for billed hours.
>
>     We know from the Ombudsman's reports and investigations that most
>     complaints that he (and it has always been a he to-date) deals
>     with are mainly interpersonal disputes. These are not
>     investigations which require substantial technical knowledge;
>     there are mediation providers who specialise in conflict
>     resolution and resolving these very issues.?
>
>     To Ars?ne's comment about budget, to quote a critic of Margaret
>     Thatcher, she knew the price of everything and the value of
>     nothing. We should not make the same mistake. We should not
>     sacrifice the independence of the Ombuds service - an extremely
>     important accountability function for the Empowered Community - in
>     order to save a few dollars (Euros, francs, pesos... insert your
>     currency's unit here).
>
>     I would also like to propose the insertion of the following
>     language into our comment:
>
>     "The Ombuds office must have a budget funded at a level sufficient
>     to carry out its identified purposes, and will account for its
>     funds directly to the Empowered Community. An inadequately funded
>     office will not be able to perform the functions required by the
>     bylaws, and thus will lack true independence."
>
>     Another point. In the past, it has been brought to my attention
>     that the Ombudsman has used ICANN's general counsel when
>     investigating matters. In my view, the Ombuds Office must have the
>     authority to hire independent legal counsel to enforce their
>     powers so that they do not have to rely on ICANN's general
>     counsel, who may have a conflict of interest. I imagine this was
>     covered by the subgroup, but I couldn't find anything just now
>     through a quick ctrl+f search of the draft recommendations. Does
>     anyone know if this matter (empowering the Ombuds Office to hire
>     independent, external counsel) was resolved already by the subgroup?
>
>     Many thanks,
>
>     Ayden
>
>
>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>     Local Time: 5 January 2018 12:41 PM
>>     UTC Time: 5 January 2018 11:41
>>     From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>     To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>>
>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     reading the comment itself, I think it gives a clear rationale
>>     for having an office instead of an individual and highlighting
>>     the required independence of ombudsman.
>>     by its mission and function, it cannot be something in-house or
>>     done by an ICANN staff because there will be dependence toward
>>     the organization and conflict of interest.? I do believe the
>>     draft the exact term of "insulate". The same concern raised when
>>     ICANN CEO created a new position for complaint officers filled by
>>     an ICANN staff supposedly handling complaints against her
>>     colleagues!!!?
>>
>>     I didn't see that we proposed specifics such consultant, law firm
>>     etc in our comment (did I miss that?) but just an external
>>     organization which gives enough room for implementation.?
>>     I don't also think that will increase substantially the cost or
>>     budget (we can check the current budgeting). by the office, I
>>     think we only mean a unit with enough resourcing and funding
>>     (ensuring again its independence and sustainability) to do it
>>     works but not creating a new organization per se.
>>
>>     there were problems with one ombudsman (in fact with the first
>>     one I think) and due to his mission, his power and also the
>>     possible CCWG recommendation to expand more his tasks and role,?
>>     we need to be careful here. We cannot dismiss the need for
>>     independence.?
>>
>>     I would also caution about the narrative that ICANN is unique,
>>     multistakeholder organization etc which is used by ICANN to
>>     dismiss concerns or reject some recommendations. we are talking
>>     here about practices and recommendations implemented in other
>>     spaces and learning from them. I don't think an ombudsman has to
>>     know about DNS or ICANN PDPs but having expertise in mediating
>>     and resolving conflicts, investigating, applying policies like
>>     anti-harassment. not knowing the actors would help to prevent
>>     bias toward any specific group.
>>     ?
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>
>>     2018-01-05 18:20 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>         Dear all,
>>
>>         Internet ecosystem changes so rapidly and regulatory? affairs
>>         are very complex, too. Beware that even having an office
>>         would not prevent ICANN to hire consultant or external law
>>         firm from time to time, since they will be some topic where
>>         the office will not have sufficient expertise.
>>
>>         Also having only the option to contract with external law
>>         firm (as needed or always) without having an office as
>>         liaison between both parties won't be efficient : a light
>>         office (few people) will be needed to make requests, manage
>>         information and knowledge etc....
>>
>>         I am tempted to say that one law firm is not a good solution
>>         for the long term time since they may lack some expertise and
>>         become excessively expensive for simple requests. Therefore,
>>         I would recommend a light office composed of few subject
>>         matter experts that can hire external consultant or law firm
>>         when needed and strongly justified (here there is another
>>         challenge : bureaucracy but better try this in-between
>>         solution before the radical one, i.e putting all the keys in
>>         an external hand)
>>
>>
>>
>>         Regards
>>         @__f_f__
>>         https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>         <https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf>
>>         ________________________________
>>         Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>
>>         Le?5 janv. 2018 09:44, "Ars?ne Tungali"
>>         <arsenebaguma at gmail.com <mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>> a
>>         ?crit?:
>>
>>             Dear colleagues,
>>
>>             First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work
>>             and for
>>             having taken the time to go through the material and
>>             provide through
>>             this comment valuable inputs.
>>
>>             I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office
>>             rather than a
>>             person for now and see how this resolves issues of
>>             independance and
>>             transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external
>>             organization if
>>             we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
>>             suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid
>>             here.
>>
>>             Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
>>             - financial: i think hiring an external
>>             group/organization will cost
>>             ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to
>>             do the same
>>             job. I may not be right on this but if this is true,
>>             remember we have
>>             been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments.
>>             I don't want
>>             us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a
>>             scheme that
>>             will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.
>>
>>             - I consider going from an individual to an external
>>             office is a big
>>             move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing
>>             what an
>>             in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our
>>             worries and
>>             concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step
>>             and later on
>>             (if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).
>>
>>             - I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team
>>             rather than
>>             an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the
>>             community would
>>             benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing
>>             this office
>>             if need be, rather than attempting to go through a
>>             process of firing
>>             an entire organization, which can be hard.
>>
>>             I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as
>>             the one of
>>             not allowing this Office to be present at social events.
>>             I think this
>>             can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It
>>             is just a
>>             matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to
>>             see them at
>>             GEM parties :)
>>
>>             Please consider these as personal opinions, with my
>>             limited law
>>             knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.
>>
>>             May I suggest we open this to the membership by January
>>             7th or so to
>>             allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And
>>             then we can
>>             finalize it?
>>
>>             Best regards,
>>             Arsene
>>
>>             2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>>             <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>             > Farzi,
>>             >? ? ? ?My point was also meant to be for organizations,
>>             of mediator and
>>             > arbitrators, not only individuals. And the
>>             organizations with the skills to
>>             > do something like this are very far from Family courts
>>             problems, if they do
>>             > family law for some reason is about a lot of money
>>             being split rather social
>>             > problems, they might be closer to environmental
>>             problems, for instance, or
>>             > consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial
>>             and transactions are
>>             > usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said
>>             previously still
>>             > applies.
>>             >? ? ? ?And it is not true that is easier to terminate a
>>             contract with a consultant
>>             > (organization or individual) than with an employee.
>>             Specially in the US. It
>>             > is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for
>>             arbitrary reasons
>>             > that breaking a contract with a good law firm
>>             (specially a long term
>>             > contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating
>>             and exit and
>>             > gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is
>>             harder than with your
>>             > own employees. We have better chances on controlling
>>             the accountability and
>>             > transparency of a full time in house employee than an
>>             external institution
>>             > that will have several clients, cases and partner,
>>             employees and providers
>>             > coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how
>>             they handle
>>             > information, and is not as weird as you may think, big
>>             companies usually get
>>             > differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not
>>             shared schools,
>>             > universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big
>>             lawyers from firms and
>>             > companies.
>>             >? ? ? ?I think we can come up with a system with a third
>>             party solution
>>             > eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the
>>             problems we have
>>             > with the in-house solution and it brings new problems
>>             on there table. I
>>             > would propose to be more specific in the this wi would
>>             change to the current
>>             > situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
>>             >
>>             > As usual, I will always support the consensus of the
>>             group, take this as an
>>             > honest opinion before closing the matter.
>>             >
>>             > Cheers,
>>             > Mart?n
>>             >
>>             >
>>             >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii
>>             <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>>             <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>             >>
>>             >> Martin,
>>             >>
>>             >> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting
>>             individual. Ombuds and
>>             >> mediation service providers can be trained mediators
>>             that resolve many
>>             >> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation
>>             offices also resolve
>>             >> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not
>>             always commercial, or
>>             >> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have
>>             to be focused on
>>             >> commercial dispute. Some valid points about
>>             arbitration services but what
>>             >> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration
>>             provider nor a law
>>             >> firm.
>>             >>
>>             >> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model,
>>             that can be gained.
>>             >> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
>>             >>
>>             >> As to? easier to detect an in-house ombudsman
>>             misbehaving: ok, we can
>>             >> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't
>>             think it's easier to
>>             >> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is
>>             dependent on it than to end
>>             >> a contract with an organization.
>>             >>
>>             >> Farzaneh
>>             >>
>>             >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>>             >> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>             <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>             <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>             <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>             >> Tati and Ayden,
>>             >>? ? ? I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a
>>             third party, a consultant,
>>             >> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman
>>             role. Most of
>>             >> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the
>>             background to do
>>             >> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the
>>             multi stakeholder
>>             >> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is
>>             far more easy to
>>             >> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an
>>             outsider you only see in
>>             >> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big
>>             and neutral enough,
>>             >> the big ones will always have? more access to them
>>             than the res of us.
>>             >>? ? ? Business, law firms and governments will always
>>             try as hard as they can
>>             >> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to
>>             change that and we for
>>             >> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced
>>             to be done in the
>>             >> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated
>>             to the ombudsman
>>             >> role and who?s socializing is openly known and
>>             transparent, that cannot
>>             >> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more
>>             easy for us to notice,
>>             >> point out and document.
>>             >>? ? ? I do agree with the critics that the role has
>>             become much more demanding
>>             >> and important, and the current way it is built is
>>             outdated to the size and
>>             >> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So
>>             we should demand
>>             >> for more documentation, deeper informs, more
>>             transparency and more rules
>>             >> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for
>>             the ombudsman itself.
>>             >>
>>             >>
>>             >> Cheers,
>>             >> Mart?n
>>             >>
>>             >>
>>             >>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline
>>             <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>             >>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com
>>             <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>> wrote:
>>             >>>
>>             >>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to
>>             the document now,
>>             >>> making the language a little more forceful, where
>>             appropriate, and also
>>             >>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for
>>             considering accepting them.
>>             >>>
>>             >>> ?Ayden
>>             >>>
>>             >>>
>>             >>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>             >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>             >>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>>             >>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>>             >>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>             <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>>
>>             >>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>             <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>             <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>             <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>>
>>             >>>>
>>             >>>> Dear all,
>>             >>>>
>>             >>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the
>>             CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
>>             >>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds
>>             Office (IOO). The
>>             >>>> call
>>             >>>> for comment and all the documents related to it
>>             could be found here:
>>             >>>>
>>             https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>>             <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>
>>             >>>>
>>             <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>>             <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>>.
>>
>>             >>>>
>>             >>>> Our draft is here:
>>             >>>>
>>             https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>             >>>>
>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>>
>>             >>>>
>>             >>>> I will share the document with the list in the
>>             incoming days, would be
>>             >>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at
>>             least if you let
>>             >>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable
>>             with it. The deadline
>>             >>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would
>>             be great if it
>>             >>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>             >>>>
>>             >>>> Cheers,
>>             >>>>
>>             >>>> Tanya
>>             >>>>
>>             >>>>
>>             >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>             >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>             <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>             >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>             >>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>             >>>
>>             >>> _______________________________________________
>>             >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>             >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>             <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>             >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>             >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>             >>
>>             >>
>>             >> _______________________________________________
>>             >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>             >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>             <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>             >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>             >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>>
>>             >>
>>             >>
>>             >
>>             >
>>
>>
>>             --
>>             ------------------------
>>             **Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>>             Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>>             <http://www.rudiinternational.org
>>             <http://www.rudiinternational.org>>*,
>>             CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*,
>>             *Mabingwa Forum
>>             <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
>>             Tel: +243 993810967 <tel:%2B243%20993810967>
>>             GPG: 523644A0
>>             *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>>
>>             2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
>>             <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>>             <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
>>             <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
>>             <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/
>>             <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
>>             <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
>>             <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
>>             <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>>) and (French
>>             <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242
>>             <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>>)
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             NCSG-PC mailing list
>>             NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>             https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180106/28ccc541/attachment.htm>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Sat Jan  6 21:55:36 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 19:55:36 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <6ce352b9-cce9-a278-9185-3ad67127dd98@mpicc.de>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxf2By5m0G7vGQo+CuFG3Xef8se=9hikU6QN7heADTfmZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmy960RdW20hf7jtgf3Ks5wA=Wk8jY65fV6ALp4aJa8yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZVp-sgX-Yy6bU_cy4AJ1zXtIMk5C6IIVUQxvvA_KE36JA2uSEMe_-Vc-kN2b0A0UNlnbWgbZoalBHeeydmUzMA1MOTXLuLnwYopjd-RETQA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxf3jE-06vxOQ1QFxHq7_qb-JSNx9b9M=wE4oeHxEVgGnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6ce352b9-cce9-a278-9185-3ad67127dd98@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxcjh2vTAZ_W70WRBk1N0BdB4j9TSGnSEt1uzfsJw9voXQ@mail.gmail.com>

You are doing a great job.

Le sam. 6 janv. 2018 ? 20:08, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> a
?crit :

> Dear all,
>
> thanks a lot for your feedback. I will send the clean document to the NCSG
> list tomorrow - let's see what the membership input is.
>
> Thanks to all of you - I am happy we have great discussions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 06/01/18 05:16, Farell Folly wrote:
>
> Hello Ayden,
>
> I particularly admire the illustration about the dutch airline company. It
> makes sense to me to think about such an approach for better diversity,
> flexibility and trust.
>
>
> Regards
> @__f_f__
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
> ________________________________
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le 6 janv. 2018 3:38 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> a ?crit :
>
>> Rafik, many thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I fully
>> agree with your remarks. ICANN org is not as unique as it likes to think
>> and we should not be re-inventing the wheel when we do not have to.
>>
>> Many private sector entities do not have staff Ombuds. I recently had an
>> issue with a major Dutch airline, and when I wanted to escalate the matter
>> further, I could contact an outsourced 'consumer advocate'. In the UK, I
>> can escalate my complaint about this airline to my choice of 3 different,
>> independent consumer advocates who are paid by the airline and are
>> empowered to investigate the merits of my complaint. And they speak my
>> native language. Outsourcing these functions makes sense to me. They have
>> their own counsel on staff, they offer localized services, and we benefit
>> from economies of scale, as they can bring the diversity we want without
>> ICANN needing to employ full-time staff, as ICANN only pays for billed
>> hours.
>>
>> We know from the Ombudsman's reports and investigations that most
>> complaints that he (and it has always been a he to-date) deals with are
>> mainly interpersonal disputes. These are not investigations which require
>> substantial technical knowledge; there are mediation providers who
>> specialise in conflict resolution and resolving these very issues.
>>
>> To Ars?ne's comment about budget, to quote a critic of Margaret Thatcher,
>> she knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. We should not
>> make the same mistake. We should not sacrifice the independence of the
>> Ombuds service - an extremely important accountability function for the
>> Empowered Community - in order to save a few dollars (Euros, francs,
>> pesos... insert your currency's unit here).
>>
>> I would also like to propose the insertion of the following language into
>> our comment:
>>
>> "The Ombuds office must have a budget funded at a level sufficient to
>> carry out its identified purposes, and will account for its funds directly
>> to the Empowered Community. An inadequately funded office will not be able
>> to perform the functions required by the bylaws, and thus will lack true
>> independence."
>>
>> Another point. In the past, it has been brought to my attention that the
>> Ombudsman has used ICANN's general counsel when investigating matters. In
>> my view, the Ombuds Office must have the authority to hire independent
>> legal counsel to enforce their powers so that they do not have to rely on
>> ICANN's general counsel, who may have a conflict of interest. I imagine
>> this was covered by the subgroup, but I couldn't find anything just now
>> through a quick ctrl+f search of the draft recommendations. Does anyone
>> know if this matter (empowering the Ombuds Office to hire independent,
>> external counsel) was resolved already by the subgroup?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>> Local Time: 5 January 2018 12:41 PM
>> UTC Time: 5 January 2018 11:41
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> reading the comment itself, I think it gives a clear rationale for having
>> an office instead of an individual and highlighting the required
>> independence of ombudsman.
>> by its mission and function, it cannot be something in-house or done by
>> an ICANN staff because there will be dependence toward the organization and
>> conflict of interest.  I do believe the draft the exact term of "insulate".
>> The same concern raised when ICANN CEO created a new position for complaint
>> officers filled by an ICANN staff supposedly handling complaints against
>> her colleagues!!!
>>
>> I didn't see that we proposed specifics such consultant, law firm etc in
>> our comment (did I miss that?) but just an external organization which
>> gives enough room for implementation.
>> I don't also think that will increase substantially the cost or budget
>> (we can check the current budgeting). by the office, I think we only mean a
>> unit with enough resourcing and funding (ensuring again its independence
>> and sustainability) to do it works but not creating a new organization per
>> se.
>>
>> there were problems with one ombudsman (in fact with the first one I
>> think) and due to his mission, his power and also the possible CCWG
>> recommendation to expand more his tasks and role,  we need to be careful
>> here. We cannot dismiss the need for independence.
>>
>> I would also caution about the narrative that ICANN is unique,
>> multistakeholder organization etc which is used by ICANN to dismiss
>> concerns or reject some recommendations. we are talking here about
>> practices and recommendations implemented in other spaces and learning from
>> them. I don't think an ombudsman has to know about DNS or ICANN PDPs but
>> having expertise in mediating and resolving conflicts, investigating,
>> applying policies like anti-harassment. not knowing the actors would help
>> to prevent bias toward any specific group.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-05 18:20 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Internet ecosystem changes so rapidly and regulatory  affairs are very
>>> complex, too. Beware that even having an office would not prevent ICANN to
>>> hire consultant or external law firm from time to time, since they will be
>>> some topic where the office will not have sufficient expertise.
>>>
>>> Also having only the option to contract with external law firm (as
>>> needed or always) without having an office as liaison between both parties
>>> won't be efficient : a light office (few people) will be needed to make
>>> requests, manage information and knowledge etc....
>>>
>>> I am tempted to say that one law firm is not a good solution for the
>>> long term time since they may lack some expertise and become excessively
>>> expensive for simple requests. Therefore, I would recommend a light office
>>> composed of few subject matter experts that can hire external consultant or
>>> law firm when needed and strongly justified (here there is another
>>> challenge : bureaucracy but better try this in-between solution before the
>>> radical one, i.e putting all the keys in an external hand)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> @__f_f__
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>> ________________________________
>>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>>
>>> Le 5 janv. 2018 09:44, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> a
>>> ?crit :
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work and for
>>> having taken the time to go through the material and provide through
>>> this comment valuable inputs.
>>>
>>> I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office rather than a
>>> person for now and see how this resolves issues of independance and
>>> transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external organization if
>>> we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
>>> suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid here.
>>>
>>> Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
>>> - financial: i think hiring an external group/organization will cost
>>> ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to do the same
>>> job. I may not be right on this but if this is true, remember we have
>>> been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments. I don't want
>>> us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a scheme that
>>> will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.
>>>
>>> - I consider going from an individual to an external office is a big
>>> move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing what an
>>> in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our worries and
>>> concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step and later on
>>> (if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).
>>>
>>> - I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team rather than
>>> an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the community would
>>> benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing this office
>>> if need be, rather than attempting to go through a process of firing
>>> an entire organization, which can be hard.
>>>
>>> I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as the one of
>>> not allowing this Office to be present at social events. I think this
>>> can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It is just a
>>> matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to see them at
>>> GEM parties :)
>>>
>>> Please consider these as personal opinions, with my limited law
>>> knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.
>>>
>>> May I suggest we open this to the membership by January 7th or so to
>>> allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And then we can
>>> finalize it?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Arsene
>>>
>>> 2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
>>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> > Farzi,
>>> >       My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and
>>> > arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the
>>> skills to
>>> > do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if
>>> they do
>>> > family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather
>>> social
>>> > problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for
>>> instance, or
>>> > consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions
>>> are
>>> > usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still
>>> > applies.
>>> >       And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a
>>> consultant
>>> > (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the
>>> US. It
>>> > is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary
>>> reasons
>>> > that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term
>>> > contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and
>>> > gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with
>>> your
>>> > own employees. We have better chances on controlling the
>>> accountability and
>>> > transparency of a full time in house employee than an external
>>> institution
>>> > that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and
>>> providers
>>> > coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle
>>> > information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies
>>> usually get
>>> > differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools,
>>> > universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms
>>> and
>>> > companies.
>>> >       I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution
>>> > eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we
>>> have
>>> > with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I
>>> > would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the
>>> current
>>> > situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
>>> >
>>> > As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this
>>> as an
>>> > honest opinion before closing the matter.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Mart?n
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Martin,
>>> >>
>>> >> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds
>>> and
>>> >> mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many
>>> >> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also
>>> resolve
>>> >> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always
>>> commercial, or
>>> >> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused
>>> on
>>> >> commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but
>>> what
>>> >> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a
>>> law
>>> >> firm.
>>> >>
>>> >> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be
>>> gained.
>>> >> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
>>> >>
>>> >> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can
>>> >> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's
>>> easier to
>>> >> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to
>>> end
>>> >> a contract with an organization.
>>> >>
>>> >> Farzaneh
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>>> >> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >> Tati and Ayden,
>>> >>      I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a
>>> consultant,
>>> >> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of
>>> >> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do
>>> >> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder
>>> >> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to
>>> >> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only
>>> see in
>>> >> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral
>>> enough,
>>> >> the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
>>> >>      Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as
>>> they can
>>> >> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we
>>> for
>>> >> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in
>>> the
>>> >> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the
>>> ombudsman
>>> >> role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that
>>> cannot
>>> >> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to
>>> notice,
>>> >> point out and document.
>>> >>      I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more
>>> demanding
>>> >> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the
>>> size and
>>> >> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should
>>> demand
>>> >> for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more
>>> rules
>>> >> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman
>>> itself.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >> Mart?n
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>> >>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document
>>> now,
>>> >>> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and
>>> also
>>> >>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting
>>> them.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ?Ayden
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>> >>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>>> >>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>>> >>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>> >>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Dear all,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work
>>> Stream
>>> >>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The
>>> >>>> call
>>> >>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>>> >>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Our draft is here:
>>> >>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >>>> <
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would
>>> be
>>> >>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you
>>> let
>>> >>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The
>>> deadline
>>> >>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>>> >>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Tanya
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> >>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------
>>> **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 <%2B243%20993810967>
>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>>>
>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
>>> <
>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>>> >
>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
>>> <
>>> http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors
>>> >
>>> & Mexico
>>> <
>>> http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors
>>> >)
>>> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> -
>>> Blogger
>>> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN'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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180106/584ac9d7/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Sat Jan  6 22:10:43 2018
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:10:43 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxcjh2vTAZ_W70WRBk1N0BdB4j9TSGnSEt1uzfsJw9voXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxf2By5m0G7vGQo+CuFG3Xef8se=9hikU6QN7heADTfmZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmy960RdW20hf7jtgf3Ks5wA=Wk8jY65fV6ALp4aJa8yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZVp-sgX-Yy6bU_cy4AJ1zXtIMk5C6IIVUQxvvA_KE36JA2uSEMe_-Vc-kN2b0A0UNlnbWgbZoalBHeeydmUzMA1MOTXLuLnwYopjd-RETQA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxf3jE-06vxOQ1QFxHq7_qb-JSNx9b9M=wE4oeHxEVgGnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6ce352b9-cce9-a278-9185-3ad67127dd98@mpicc.de>
 <CADzHdxcjh2vTAZ_W70WRBk1N0BdB4j9TSGnSEt1uzfsJw9voXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40v_nv1EFTKniRLqQ2yGAPL4sOYsSu8kRAg84oBmhARdhw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Tatiana,

Great work in indeed.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 6 January 2018 at 20:55, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:

> You are doing a great job.
>
> Le sam. 6 janv. 2018 ? 20:08, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> a
> ?crit :
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> thanks a lot for your feedback. I will send the clean document to the
>> NCSG list tomorrow - let's see what the membership input is.
>>
>> Thanks to all of you - I am happy we have great discussions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On 06/01/18 05:16, Farell Folly wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ayden,
>>
>> I particularly admire the illustration about the dutch airline company.
>> It makes sense to me to think about such an approach for better diversity,
>> flexibility and trust.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>> ________________________________
>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>
>> Le 6 janv. 2018 3:38 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> a
>> ?crit :
>>
>>> Rafik, many thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I fully
>>> agree with your remarks. ICANN org is not as unique as it likes to think
>>> and we should not be re-inventing the wheel when we do not have to.
>>>
>>> Many private sector entities do not have staff Ombuds. I recently had an
>>> issue with a major Dutch airline, and when I wanted to escalate the matter
>>> further, I could contact an outsourced 'consumer advocate'. In the UK, I
>>> can escalate my complaint about this airline to my choice of 3 different,
>>> independent consumer advocates who are paid by the airline and are
>>> empowered to investigate the merits of my complaint. And they speak my
>>> native language. Outsourcing these functions makes sense to me. They have
>>> their own counsel on staff, they offer localized services, and we benefit
>>> from economies of scale, as they can bring the diversity we want without
>>> ICANN needing to employ full-time staff, as ICANN only pays for billed
>>> hours.
>>>
>>> We know from the Ombudsman's reports and investigations that most
>>> complaints that he (and it has always been a he to-date) deals with are
>>> mainly interpersonal disputes. These are not investigations which require
>>> substantial technical knowledge; there are mediation providers who
>>> specialise in conflict resolution and resolving these very issues.
>>>
>>> To Ars?ne's comment about budget, to quote a critic of Margaret
>>> Thatcher, she knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. We
>>> should not make the same mistake. We should not sacrifice the independence
>>> of the Ombuds service - an extremely important accountability function for
>>> the Empowered Community - in order to save a few dollars (Euros, francs,
>>> pesos... insert your currency's unit here).
>>>
>>> I would also like to propose the insertion of the following language
>>> into our comment:
>>>
>>> "The Ombuds office must have a budget funded at a level sufficient to
>>> carry out its identified purposes, and will account for its funds directly
>>> to the Empowered Community. An inadequately funded office will not be able
>>> to perform the functions required by the bylaws, and thus will lack true
>>> independence."
>>>
>>> Another point. In the past, it has been brought to my attention that the
>>> Ombudsman has used ICANN's general counsel when investigating matters. In
>>> my view, the Ombuds Office must have the authority to hire independent
>>> legal counsel to enforce their powers so that they do not have to rely on
>>> ICANN's general counsel, who may have a conflict of interest. I imagine
>>> this was covered by the subgroup, but I couldn't find anything just now
>>> through a quick ctrl+f search of the draft recommendations. Does anyone
>>> know if this matter (empowering the Ombuds Office to hire independent,
>>> external counsel) was resolved already by the subgroup?
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>> Local Time: 5 January 2018 12:41 PM
>>> UTC Time: 5 January 2018 11:41
>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> reading the comment itself, I think it gives a clear rationale for
>>> having an office instead of an individual and highlighting the required
>>> independence of ombudsman.
>>> by its mission and function, it cannot be something in-house or done by
>>> an ICANN staff because there will be dependence toward the organization and
>>> conflict of interest.  I do believe the draft the exact term of "insulate".
>>> The same concern raised when ICANN CEO created a new position for complaint
>>> officers filled by an ICANN staff supposedly handling complaints against
>>> her colleagues!!!
>>>
>>> I didn't see that we proposed specifics such consultant, law firm etc in
>>> our comment (did I miss that?) but just an external organization which
>>> gives enough room for implementation.
>>> I don't also think that will increase substantially the cost or budget
>>> (we can check the current budgeting). by the office, I think we only mean a
>>> unit with enough resourcing and funding (ensuring again its independence
>>> and sustainability) to do it works but not creating a new organization per
>>> se.
>>>
>>> there were problems with one ombudsman (in fact with the first one I
>>> think) and due to his mission, his power and also the possible CCWG
>>> recommendation to expand more his tasks and role,  we need to be careful
>>> here. We cannot dismiss the need for independence.
>>>
>>> I would also caution about the narrative that ICANN is unique,
>>> multistakeholder organization etc which is used by ICANN to dismiss
>>> concerns or reject some recommendations. we are talking here about
>>> practices and recommendations implemented in other spaces and learning from
>>> them. I don't think an ombudsman has to know about DNS or ICANN PDPs but
>>> having expertise in mediating and resolving conflicts, investigating,
>>> applying policies like anti-harassment. not knowing the actors would help
>>> to prevent bias toward any specific group.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2018-01-05 18:20 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Internet ecosystem changes so rapidly and regulatory  affairs are very
>>>> complex, too. Beware that even having an office would not prevent ICANN to
>>>> hire consultant or external law firm from time to time, since they will be
>>>> some topic where the office will not have sufficient expertise.
>>>>
>>>> Also having only the option to contract with external law firm (as
>>>> needed or always) without having an office as liaison between both parties
>>>> won't be efficient : a light office (few people) will be needed to make
>>>> requests, manage information and knowledge etc....
>>>>
>>>> I am tempted to say that one law firm is not a good solution for the
>>>> long term time since they may lack some expertise and become excessively
>>>> expensive for simple requests. Therefore, I would recommend a light office
>>>> composed of few subject matter experts that can hire external consultant or
>>>> law firm when needed and strongly justified (here there is another
>>>> challenge : bureaucracy but better try this in-between solution before the
>>>> radical one, i.e putting all the keys in an external hand)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> @__f_f__
>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>>>
>>>> Le 5 janv. 2018 09:44, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> a
>>>> ?crit :
>>>>
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work and for
>>>> having taken the time to go through the material and provide through
>>>> this comment valuable inputs.
>>>>
>>>> I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office rather than a
>>>> person for now and see how this resolves issues of independance and
>>>> transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external organization if
>>>> we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
>>>> suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid here.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
>>>> - financial: i think hiring an external group/organization will cost
>>>> ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to do the same
>>>> job. I may not be right on this but if this is true, remember we have
>>>> been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments. I don't want
>>>> us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a scheme that
>>>> will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.
>>>>
>>>> - I consider going from an individual to an external office is a big
>>>> move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing what an
>>>> in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our worries and
>>>> concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step and later on
>>>> (if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).
>>>>
>>>> - I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team rather than
>>>> an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the community would
>>>> benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing this office
>>>> if need be, rather than attempting to go through a process of firing
>>>> an entire organization, which can be hard.
>>>>
>>>> I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as the one of
>>>> not allowing this Office to be present at social events. I think this
>>>> can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It is just a
>>>> matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to see them at
>>>> GEM parties :)
>>>>
>>>> Please consider these as personal opinions, with my limited law
>>>> knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest we open this to the membership by January 7th or so to
>>>> allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And then we can
>>>> finalize it?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Arsene
>>>>
>>>> 2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
>>>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> > Farzi,
>>>> >       My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and
>>>> > arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the
>>>> skills to
>>>> > do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if
>>>> they do
>>>> > family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather
>>>> social
>>>> > problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for
>>>> instance, or
>>>> > consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions
>>>> are
>>>> > usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still
>>>> > applies.
>>>> >       And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with
>>>> a consultant
>>>> > (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the
>>>> US. It
>>>> > is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary
>>>> reasons
>>>> > that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term
>>>> > contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and
>>>> > gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with
>>>> your
>>>> > own employees. We have better chances on controlling the
>>>> accountability and
>>>> > transparency of a full time in house employee than an external
>>>> institution
>>>> > that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and
>>>> providers
>>>> > coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle
>>>> > information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies
>>>> usually get
>>>> > differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared
>>>> schools,
>>>> > universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms
>>>> and
>>>> > companies.
>>>> >       I think we can come up with a system with a third party solution
>>>> > eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we
>>>> have
>>>> > with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table.
>>>> I
>>>> > would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the
>>>> current
>>>> > situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
>>>> >
>>>> > As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this
>>>> as an
>>>> > honest opinion before closing the matter.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> > Mart?n
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Martin,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual.
>>>> Ombuds and
>>>> >> mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve
>>>> many
>>>> >> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also
>>>> resolve
>>>> >> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always
>>>> commercial, or
>>>> >> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused
>>>> on
>>>> >> commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but
>>>> what
>>>> >> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a
>>>> law
>>>> >> firm.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be
>>>> gained.
>>>> >> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can
>>>> >> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's
>>>> easier to
>>>> >> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than
>>>> to end
>>>> >> a contract with an organization.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Farzaneh
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>>>> >> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> >> Tati and Ayden,
>>>> >>      I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a
>>>> consultant,
>>>> >> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of
>>>> >> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to
>>>> do
>>>> >> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder
>>>> >> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to
>>>> >> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only
>>>> see in
>>>> >> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral
>>>> enough,
>>>> >> the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of
>>>> us.
>>>> >>      Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as
>>>> they can
>>>> >> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and
>>>> we for
>>>> >> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in
>>>> the
>>>> >> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the
>>>> ombudsman
>>>> >> role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that
>>>> cannot
>>>> >> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to
>>>> notice,
>>>> >> point out and document.
>>>> >>      I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more
>>>> demanding
>>>> >> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the
>>>> size and
>>>> >> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should
>>>> demand
>>>> >> for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more
>>>> rules
>>>> >> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman
>>>> itself.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>> >> Mart?n
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>> >>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document
>>>> now,
>>>> >>> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and
>>>> also
>>>> >>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting
>>>> them.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> ?Ayden
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>>> >>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>>>> >>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>>>> >>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>>> >>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Dear all,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work
>>>> Stream
>>>> >>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The
>>>> >>>> call
>>>> >>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found
>>>> here:
>>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>>>> >>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Our draft is here:
>>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-
>>>> 2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-
>>>> 2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days,
>>>> would be
>>>> >>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you
>>>> let
>>>> >>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The
>>>> deadline
>>>> >>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>>>> >>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Tanya
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> >>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> **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 <%2B243%20993810967>
>>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>>>>
>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
>>>> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-
>>>> mandela-washington.html>
>>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
>>>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-
>>>> leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-
>>>> ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
>>>> & Mexico
>>>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-
>>>> leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
>>>> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> -
>>>> Blogger
>>>> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN'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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> @__f_f__
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>


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






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180106/dd0b285f/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Sat Jan  6 22:56:50 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:56:50 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40v_nv1EFTKniRLqQ2yGAPL4sOYsSu8kRAg84oBmhARdhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <350739e3-65a9-c824-d993-3c500d2d0254@mpicc.de>
 <i2YJ4DvUH_xdJfDxjoQaGXTezsRHZBRDmiRw_Wmlgq2UgI6pz30uM1IaO4ZKIPPRr0dZNX8KAkLqhBuBYT5o39qJNKc44oW7nvKtjUlFfwI=@ferdeline.com>
 <98F202B0-83A8-4C28-A57D-11B8060B28C3@gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvDVhmndu=vBVkywmwgcA19VMTN2+gRtrj4GcxayDuYoig@mail.gmail.com>
 <69D2BF1A-2B5A-4F5C-93E5-C523514B2BA6@gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp9biJS4q-E7+HHF9b7O9uM7YiYCbPjmapdEN1_GPfLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxf2By5m0G7vGQo+CuFG3Xef8se=9hikU6QN7heADTfmZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxdr87-ofnJS4wkySM383G5K2BMhMjRb769Y0t-Gqw7KYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcQtB3o5xP2wWyg5TEAJdj3ohW=h5AyL3gjynCBcVBz5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmy960RdW20hf7jtgf3Ks5wA=Wk8jY65fV6ALp4aJa8yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZVp-sgX-Yy6bU_cy4AJ1zXtIMk5C6IIVUQxvvA_KE36JA2uSEMe_-Vc-kN2b0A0UNlnbWgbZoalBHeeydmUzMA1MOTXLuLnwYopjd-RETQA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxf3jE-06vxOQ1QFxHq7_qb-JSNx9b9M=wE4oeHxEVgGnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6ce352b9-cce9-a278-9185-3ad67127dd98@mpicc.de>
 <CADzHdxcjh2vTAZ_W70WRBk1N0BdB4j9TSGnSEt1uzfsJw9voXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEux40v_nv1EFTKniRLqQ2yGAPL4sOYsSu8kRAg84oBmhARdhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91100701-846C-4FB2-AC1E-F49B0BD86371@gmail.com>

Hi Rafik and Ayden,

Thank you very much for your remarks and explanation that really helped to better understand the issue. 

I am therefore happy to go with the comment as it stands and can agree that we should push for an outsourced Ombuds office. Also agree with the suggested paragraph with regards to funding for this office.

With my best regards,
Arsene

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

Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

> On Jan 6, 2018, at 10:10 PM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Tatiana,
> 
> Great work in indeed.
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Poncelet
> 
>> On 6 January 2018 at 20:55, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are doing a great job.
>> 
>>> Le sam. 6 janv. 2018 ? 20:08, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> a ?crit :
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> thanks a lot for your feedback. I will send the clean document to the NCSG list tomorrow - let's see what the membership input is.
>>> 
>>> Thanks to all of you - I am happy we have great discussions.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Tanya 
>>> 
>>>> On 06/01/18 05:16, Farell Folly wrote:
>>>> Hello Ayden,
>>>> 
>>>> I particularly admire the illustration about the dutch airline company. It makes sense to me to think about such an approach for better diversity, flexibility and trust.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> @__f_f__
>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>>> 
>>>> Le 6 janv. 2018 3:38 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> a ?crit :
>>>>> Rafik, many thanks for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I fully agree with your remarks. ICANN org is not as unique as it likes to think and we should not be re-inventing the wheel when we do not have to.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Many private sector entities do not have staff Ombuds. I recently had an issue with a major Dutch airline, and when I wanted to escalate the matter further, I could contact an outsourced 'consumer advocate'. In the UK, I can escalate my complaint about this airline to my choice of 3 different, independent consumer advocates who are paid by the airline and are empowered to investigate the merits of my complaint. And they speak my native language. Outsourcing these functions makes sense to me. They have their own counsel on staff, they offer localized services, and we benefit from economies of scale, as they can bring the diversity we want without ICANN needing to employ full-time staff, as ICANN only pays for billed hours.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We know from the Ombudsman's reports and investigations that most complaints that he (and it has always been a he to-date) deals with are mainly interpersonal disputes. These are not investigations which require substantial technical knowledge; there are mediation providers who specialise in conflict resolution and resolving these very issues. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> To Ars?ne's comment about budget, to quote a critic of Margaret Thatcher, she knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. We should not make the same mistake. We should not sacrifice the independence of the Ombuds service - an extremely important accountability function for the Empowered Community - in order to save a few dollars (Euros, francs, pesos... insert your currency's unit here).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would also like to propose the insertion of the following language into our comment:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "The Ombuds office must have a budget funded at a level sufficient to carry out its identified purposes, and will account for its funds directly to the Empowered Community. An inadequately funded office will not be able to perform the functions required by the bylaws, and thus will lack true independence."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Another point. In the past, it has been brought to my attention that the Ombudsman has used ICANN's general counsel when investigating matters. In my view, the Ombuds Office must have the authority to hire independent legal counsel to enforce their powers so that they do not have to rely on ICANN's general counsel, who may have a conflict of interest. I imagine this was covered by the subgroup, but I couldn't find anything just now through a quick ctrl+f search of the draft recommendations. Does               anyone know if this matter (empowering the Ombuds Office to hire independent, external counsel) was resolved already by the subgroup?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ayden
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>>>>> Local Time: 5 January 2018 12:41 PM
>>>>>> UTC Time: 5 January 2018 11:41
>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> reading the comment itself, I think it gives a clear rationale for having an office instead of an individual and highlighting the required independence of ombudsman.
>>>>>> by its mission and function, it cannot be something in-house or done by an ICANN staff because there will be dependence toward the organization and conflict of interest.  I do believe the draft the exact term of "insulate". The same concern raised when ICANN CEO created a new position for complaint officers filled by an ICANN staff supposedly handling complaints against her colleagues!!! 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I didn't see that we proposed specifics such consultant, law firm etc in our comment (did I miss that?) but just an external organization which gives enough room for implementation. 
>>>>>> I don't also think that will increase substantially the cost or budget (we can check the current budgeting). by the office, I think we only mean a unit with enough resourcing and funding (ensuring again its independence and sustainability) to do it works but not creating a new organization per se.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> there were problems with one ombudsman (in fact with the first one I think) and due to his mission, his power and also the possible CCWG recommendation to expand more his tasks and role,  we need to be careful here. We cannot dismiss the need for independence. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would also caution about the narrative that ICANN is unique, multistakeholder organization etc which is used by ICANN to dismiss concerns or reject some recommendations. we are talking here about practices and recommendations implemented in other spaces and learning from them. I don't think an ombudsman has to know about DNS or ICANN PDPs but having expertise in mediating and resolving conflicts, investigating, applying policies like anti-harassment. not knowing the actors would help to prevent bias toward any specific group.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2018-01-05 18:20 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Internet ecosystem changes so rapidly and regulatory  affairs are very complex, too. Beware that even having an office would not prevent ICANN to hire                           consultant or external law firm from time to time, since they will be some topic where the office will not have sufficient expertise.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also having only the option to contract with external law firm (as needed or always) without having an office as liaison between both parties won't be efficient : a light office (few people) will be needed to make requests, manage information and knowledge etc....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am tempted to say that one law firm is not a good solution for the long term time since they may lack some expertise and become excessively expensive for simple requests. Therefore, I would recommend a light office composed of few subject matter experts that can hire external consultant or law firm when needed and strongly justified (here there is another challenge : bureaucracy but better try this in-between solution before the radical one, i.e putting all the keys in an external hand)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> @__f_f__
>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Le 5 janv. 2018 09:44, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> a ?crit :
>>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> First, let me thank our penholders for such a great work and for
>>>>>>> having taken the time to go through the material and provide through
>>>>>>> this comment valuable inputs.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I do agree and would encourage us to push for an Office rather than a
>>>>>>> person for now and see how this resolves issues of independance and
>>>>>>> transparency. And maybe later on, push for an external organization if
>>>>>>> we are not satisfied with the scheme of an office as we are
>>>>>>> suggesting. I think Martin's point and worries are valid here.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Some of the reasons i vote for an in-house office are:
>>>>>>> - financial: i think hiring an external group/organization will cost
>>>>>>> ICANN much more money than keeping an in-house office to do the same
>>>>>>> job. I may not be right on this but if this is true, remember we have
>>>>>>> been pushing for cost reduction in our previous comments. I don't want
>>>>>>> us to be seen as asking to cut costs and then suggest a scheme that
>>>>>>> will lead ICANN to an increase of cost.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - I consider going from an individual to an external office is a big
>>>>>>> move/shift, we may be loosing the chance of experiencing what an
>>>>>>> in-house Office can offer as innovation to clear our worries and
>>>>>>> concerns. I believe this should be seen as the next step and later on
>>>>>>> (if need be), to ask for the 3rd option (an external office).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - I also think it is much easier to fire an in-house team rather than
>>>>>>> an external body and i believe the ICANN Or and/or the community would
>>>>>>> benefit much from having the possibility of easily firing this office
>>>>>>> if need be, rather than attempting to go through a process of firing
>>>>>>> an entire organization, which can be hard.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I strongly agree with most of the concerns raised such as the one of
>>>>>>> not allowing this Office to be present at social events. I think this
>>>>>>> can still be enforced even if it is an in-house team. It is just a
>>>>>>> matter of making it clear to them that we don't want to see them at
>>>>>>> GEM parties :)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please consider these as personal opinions, with my limited law
>>>>>>> knowledge. And happy to join what we will decide as a group.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> May I suggest we open this to the membership by January 7th or so to
>>>>>>> allow them a week to review and share their thoughts? And then we can
>>>>>>> finalize it?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Arsene
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2018-01-05 0:38 UTC+02:00, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > Farzi,
>>>>>>> >       My point was also meant to be for organizations, of mediator and
>>>>>>> > arbitrators, not only individuals. And the organizations with the skills to
>>>>>>> > do something like this are very far from Family courts problems, if they do
>>>>>>> > family law for some reason is about a lot of money being split rather social
>>>>>>> > problems, they might be closer to environmental problems, for instance, or
>>>>>>> > consumer issues, but again, in both cases commercial and transactions are
>>>>>>> > usually the way to solve the problem, and what I said previously still
>>>>>>> > applies.
>>>>>>> >       And it is not true that is easier to terminate a contract with a consultant
>>>>>>> > (organization or individual) than with an employee. Specially in the US. It
>>>>>>> > is far more easy to fire one person or a small team for arbitrary reasons
>>>>>>> > that breaking a contract with a good law firm (specially a long term
>>>>>>> > contract). In such case ICANN might end up negotiating and exit and
>>>>>>> > gathering the evidence for a rightful termination is harder than with your
>>>>>>> > own employees. We have better chances on controlling the accountability and
>>>>>>> > transparency of a full time in house employee than an external institution
>>>>>>> > that will have several clients, cases and partner, employees and providers
>>>>>>> > coming and going. For instance, we don?t control how they handle
>>>>>>> > information, and is not as weird as you may think, big companies usually get
>>>>>>> > differential treatment, arbitrators more often than not shared schools,
>>>>>>> > universities, neighbourhoods and friends with big lawyers from firms and
>>>>>>> > companies.
>>>>>>> >       I think we can come up with a system with a third party                                     solution
>>>>>>> > eventually, but I just don?t see that it will solve the problems we have
>>>>>>> > with the in-house solution and it brings new problems on there table. I
>>>>>>> > would propose to be more specific in the this wi would change to the current
>>>>>>> > situations, but with the in-house full time scheme.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > As usual, I will always support the consensus of the group, take this as an
>>>>>>> > honest opinion before closing the matter.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Cheers,
>>>>>>> > Mart?n
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 19:24, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Martin,
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> We are suggesting an organization not a consulting individual. Ombuds and
>>>>>>> >> mediation service providers can be trained mediators that resolve many
>>>>>>> >> disputes (commercial and noncommercial). Mediation offices also resolve
>>>>>>> >> divorce disputes which are highly sensitive and not always commercial, or
>>>>>>> >> they resolve neighbor disputes etc. So they don't have to be focused on
>>>>>>> >> commercial dispute. Some valid points about arbitration services but what
>>>>>>> >> we are suggesting does not have to be an arbitration provider nor a law
>>>>>>> >> firm.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> As to knowledge about DNS and multistakeholder model, that can be gained.
>>>>>>> >> As it was gained by previous ombuds persons at ICANN.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> As to  easier to detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving: ok, we can
>>>>>>> >> argue over this but even if that is the case I don't think it's easier to
>>>>>>> >> cancel someone's contract whose livelihood is dependent on it than to end
>>>>>>> >> a contract with an organization.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Farzaneh
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
>>>>>>> >> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> Tati and Ayden,
>>>>>>> >>      I personally I?ve not made up my mind that a third party, a consultant,
>>>>>>> >> is going to guarantee independence in the Ombudsman role. Most of
>>>>>>> >> arbitrators, law firm or other organizations with the background to do
>>>>>>> >> this are heavily business sided or, unaware of the multi stakeholder
>>>>>>> >> model, DNS and Internet Governance in general. It is far more easy to
>>>>>>> >> detect an in-house ombudsman misbehaving than an outsider you only see in
>>>>>>> >> a room or in an email. Even if we found someone big and neutral enough,
>>>>>>> >> the big ones will always have  more access to them than the res of us.
>>>>>>> >>      Business, law firms and governments will always try as hard as they can
>>>>>>> >> to bend the process and lobby, we are not going to change that and we for
>>>>>>> >> sure can keep up with it, but if that lobby is forced to be done in the
>>>>>>> >> inside of icann, with someone that is solely dedicated to the ombudsman
>>>>>>> >> role and who?s socializing is openly known and transparent, that cannot
>>>>>>> >> hide behind appointments or emails, the is far more easy for us to notice,
>>>>>>> >> point out and document.
>>>>>>> >>      I do agree with the critics that the role has become much more demanding
>>>>>>> >> and important, and the current way it is built is outdated to the size and
>>>>>>> >> role of ICANN, specially after the IANA Transition. So we should demand
>>>>>>> >> for more documentation, deeper informs, more transparency and more rules
>>>>>>> >> and procedures, not so much for complaints, but for the ombudsman itself.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>>>>> >> Mart?n
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:23, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>> >>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Thanks for this, Tanya. I've made some minor edits to the document now,
>>>>>>> >>> making the language a little more forceful, where appropriate, and also
>>>>>>> >>> expanding upon the third point. Thanks for considering accepting them.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> ?Ayden
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public comment on Ombuds Office
>>>>>>> >>>> Local Time: 4 January 2018 4:07 PM
>>>>>>> >>>> UTC Time: 4 January 2018 15:07
>>>>>>> >>>> From: t.tropina at mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>>>>>> >>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Farzaneh and I drafted a comment on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
>>>>>>> >>>> 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on the ICANN Ombuds Office (IOO). The
>>>>>>> >>>> call
>>>>>>> >>>> for comment and all the documents related to it could be found here:
>>>>>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en
>>>>>>> >>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ioo-recs-2017-11-10-en>.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Our draft is here:
>>>>>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>> >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> I will share the document with the list in the incoming days, would be
>>>>>>> >>>> grateful if PC comments and amends it first -- or at least if you let
>>>>>>> >>>> us, the penholders, know that you are comfortable with it. The deadline
>>>>>>> >>>> is 14th of January, so we have some time, but would be great if it
>>>>>>> >>>> remains open for comments from our membership, too.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Tanya
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>> >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>> **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>)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org
> www,insistglobal.com
> www.npoc.org
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180106/7dd2644a/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Jan  8 08:41:38 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:41:38 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm7Er3ZcR0fDKmTRb4qn82oBvs5vHzCt7z_q3Mni5Db=w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

as you know we have several public comments draft to endorse in coming days.
the draft on CCWG recommendation on diversity was put for consultation for
weeks and received some comments.

you can find the draft here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit#
. I made some suggestions and put comments myself there.
We need to clean-up the draft and prepare for review and endorsement soon
within this week. comments and proof-reading would be helpful.

the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan. our internal deadline for
endorsement should be the 13th Jan.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180108/e9f661bb/attachment.htm>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Mon Jan  8 15:40:20 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:40:20 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm7Er3ZcR0fDKmTRb4qn82oBvs5vHzCt7z_q3Mni5Db=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThm7Er3ZcR0fDKmTRb4qn82oBvs5vHzCt7z_q3Mni5Db=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxcNkfcr-SWyDYUVSP-uz1vPkOkJg6cAw8O0UzOdR_d00g@mail.gmail.com>

At glance, it is seems ok to me. I will read again for proof reading.

Le lun. 8 janv. 2018 ? 07:42, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
?crit :

> Hi all,
>
> as you know we have several public comments draft to endorse in coming
> days.
> the draft on CCWG recommendation on diversity was put for consultation for
> weeks and received some comments.
>
> you can find the draft here
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit#
> . I made some suggestions and put comments myself there.
> We need to clean-up the draft and prepare for review and endorsement soon
> within this week. comments and proof-reading would be helpful.
>
> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan. our internal deadline for
> endorsement should be the 13th 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180108/bb930ff6/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Jan  9 05:06:09 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:06:09 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_G?=
	=?utf-8?q?NSO_Council=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Budget_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start
working on the budget soon.
I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls concern
subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of names but
I hope that we get enough candidates.
quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the
description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
Best,

Rafik

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


Dear all,



Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s
Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier
today to the SG/C Chairs.



As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by
SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.



Kind regards,



Nathalie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/87f5cf96/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gnso-council-sc-budget-sme-cfv_20180108.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/87f5cf96/attachment.pdf>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan  9 08:14:26 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 01:14:26 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_G?=
 =?utf-8?q?NSO_Council=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Bud?=
 =?utf-8?q?get_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <KPcQvWxyazpS5tmUk73KySCYJmsR_haZaCHb6sAUubYzGu3mzOePXVIpX6haxXb8J-oUr-EA5PmO5ZLxvHmiAptxzJGTAy9KcXj1erNhtAM=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks for this, Rafik. I intended to continue serving on the SCBO in my capacity as GNSO Councilor. For Subject Matter Experts, I support the open call that you proposed, but given the nature of this Standing Committee, I think it would make sense to prioritise appointments from the NCSG to the SCBO based on participation in the NCSG's Finance Committee. I would be surprised if there was a need for me than 2 or 3 appointments here.

? Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
> Local Time: 9 January 2018 4:06 AM
> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 03:06
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start working on the budget soon.
> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier today to the SG/C Chairs.
>
> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nathalie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/c092782a/attachment.htm>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Tue Jan  9 11:58:13 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 09:58:13 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_G?=
	=?utf-8?q?NSO_Council=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Budget_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <KPcQvWxyazpS5tmUk73KySCYJmsR_haZaCHb6sAUubYzGu3mzOePXVIpX6haxXb8J-oUr-EA5PmO5ZLxvHmiAptxzJGTAy9KcXj1erNhtAM=@ferdeline.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <KPcQvWxyazpS5tmUk73KySCYJmsR_haZaCHb6sAUubYzGu3mzOePXVIpX6haxXb8J-oUr-EA5PmO5ZLxvHmiAptxzJGTAy9KcXj1erNhtAM=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxdJF_yXC5RGT7n1v__ArwrRn2P2Q=3Gj5LT2QnQ4u2YUw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Rafick,

I am in full support of the open selection process but two persons in
addition to the two councillors can do the job, otherwise there will be an
effeciency issue for a bigger team.

Le mar. 9 janv. 2018 ? 07:14, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
?crit :

> Thanks for this, Rafik. I intended to continue serving on the SCBO in my
> capacity as GNSO Councilor. For Subject Matter Experts, I support the open
> call that you proposed, but given the nature of this Standing Committee, I
> think it would make sense to prioritise appointments from the NCSG to the
> SCBO based on participation in the NCSG's Finance Committee. I would be
> surprised if there was a need for me than 2 or 3 appointments here.
>
> ? Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s
> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
> Local Time: 9 January 2018 4:06 AM
> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 03:06
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start
> working on the budget soon.
> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls
> concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of
> names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the
> description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s
> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier
> today to the SG/C Chairs.
>
>
>
> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by
> SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Nathalie
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/aa798b95/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Jan  9 12:33:04 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 19:33:04 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_G?=
	=?utf-8?q?NSO_Council=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Budget_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxdJF_yXC5RGT7n1v__ArwrRn2P2Q=3Gj5LT2QnQ4u2YUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <KPcQvWxyazpS5tmUk73KySCYJmsR_haZaCHb6sAUubYzGu3mzOePXVIpX6haxXb8J-oUr-EA5PmO5ZLxvHmiAptxzJGTAy9KcXj1erNhtAM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxdJF_yXC5RGT7n1v__ArwrRn2P2Q=3Gj5LT2QnQ4u2YUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnuiQ-xxBpWh27qPb8D=SePvqGL3i+7o0nr7izgMqoaDg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

thanks, Ayden, Farell. just to clarify the call concerns only
non-councilors deemed as subject matter experts. current councilors will
continue their involvement for sure and don't need appointment.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-09 18:58 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:

> Dear Rafick,
>
> I am in full support of the open selection process but two persons in
> addition to the two councillors can do the job, otherwise there will be an
> effeciency issue for a bigger team.
>
> Le mar. 9 janv. 2018 ? 07:14, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
> ?crit :
>
>> Thanks for this, Rafik. I intended to continue serving on the SCBO in my
>> capacity as GNSO Councilor. For Subject Matter Experts, I support the open
>> call that you proposed, but given the nature of this Standing Committee, I
>> think it would make sense to prioritise appointments from the NCSG to the
>> SCBO based on participation in the NCSG's Finance Committee. I would be
>> surprised if there was a need for me than 2 or 3 appointments here.
>>
>> ? Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s
>> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
>> Local Time: 9 January 2018 4:06 AM
>> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 03:06
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start
>> working on the budget soon.
>> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls
>> concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of
>> names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
>> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the
>> description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s
>> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier
>> today to the SG/C Chairs.
>>
>>
>>
>> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by
>> SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nathalie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/89762802/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Tue Jan  9 13:43:55 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 13:43:55 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_G?=
 =?utf-8?q?NSO_Council=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Bud?=
 =?utf-8?q?get_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnuiQ-xxBpWh27qPb8D=SePvqGL3i+7o0nr7izgMqoaDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <KPcQvWxyazpS5tmUk73KySCYJmsR_haZaCHb6sAUubYzGu3mzOePXVIpX6haxXb8J-oUr-EA5PmO5ZLxvHmiAptxzJGTAy9KcXj1erNhtAM=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxdJF_yXC5RGT7n1v__ArwrRn2P2Q=3Gj5LT2QnQ4u2YUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThnuiQ-xxBpWh27qPb8D=SePvqGL3i+7o0nr7izgMqoaDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A7FF0802-6F75-423A-A351-DBD2BC706E40@gmail.com>

Hi Rafik,

I agree with the open call and hope Farzi will send one soon to the list. 

Regards,
Arsene

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

Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

> On Jan 9, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks, Ayden, Farell. just to clarify the call concerns only non-councilors deemed as subject matter experts. current councilors will continue their involvement for sure and don't need appointment. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2018-01-09 18:58 GMT+09:00 Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:
>> Dear Rafick,
>> 
>> I am in full support of the open selection process but two persons in addition to the two councillors can do the job, otherwise there will be an effeciency issue for a bigger team.
>> 
>>> Le mar. 9 janv. 2018 ? 07:14, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a ?crit :
>>> Thanks for this, Rafik. I intended to continue serving on the SCBO in my capacity as GNSO Councilor. For Subject Matter Experts, I support the open call that you proposed, but given the nature of this Standing Committee, I think it would make sense to prioritise appointments from the NCSG to the SCBO based on participation in the NCSG's Finance Committee. I would be surprised if there was a need for me than 2 or 3 appointments here.
>>> 
>>> ? Ayden  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
>>>> Local Time: 9 January 2018 4:06 AM
>>>> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 03:06
>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start working on the budget soon.
>>>> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
>>>> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier today to the SG/C Chairs.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Nathalie
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/82ca246a/attachment.htm>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Tue Jan  9 16:51:45 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 14:51:45 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on the CCT-RT report
Message-ID: <CADzHdxceE0M5dv4K=h_-0kLkhXEqd7mg=6i0Lh6KheX8ujUJtA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team has
recently issued a new version of their report by adding new sections to the
previous one. They sought to receive comments on these new sections only.
The draft version of the NCSG comment
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit>
is now ready and I encourage everyone to take a look and give feedback.
However given the deadline (January 15th is the hard deadline which
extended from January 8th), it is better not to bring new ideas without
rationale. For instance, all comments so far are against having a DNS
Dispute Reolsution Policy, therefore if somebody does agree with this
DADRP, please state that alongside witth a justfication (one sentence or
two) supporting you idea.

I would also like to thank every member who worked on this, especially
Kathy Kleiman, Juan Manual, Rafik, etc. Your contributions are outstanding.


Both the draft and the report are attached.


-- 
Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/792ba6fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cct-rt-draft-recs-new-sections-27nov17-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1174661 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/792ba6fe/attachment.pdf>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Jan 10 00:52:19 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:52:19 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxcNkfcr-SWyDYUVSP-uz1vPkOkJg6cAw8O0UzOdR_d00g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThm7Er3ZcR0fDKmTRb4qn82oBvs5vHzCt7z_q3Mni5Db=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcNkfcr-SWyDYUVSP-uz1vPkOkJg6cAw8O0UzOdR_d00g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <t9LDKN6eoZaGd5dLjZWtuX2tWiJy5SdoOH3tyQgnPMTWIoOxl4n3PqBvA0nPGLTTGsfyFSXamytC2sXf8bpEuDK8a0hVeiS_3lT3oy2vutw=@ferdeline.com>

Firstly, thanks to all who were involved in drafting this comment.

I have now done a very heavy edit of the Google Doc, so if you have already reviewed it, please can you consider reviewing it again, as I have made many changes.

That said, I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet. When I look over the comment I think, what is it that we have suggested here that we would like to see in the staff summary of comments received? I'm not sure. I don't think our ASK is very clear.

I have some issues with the elements of diversity which the subgroup identified, but as I was not involved in their work, I don't have the background to know how they were determined. I have serious concerns around "diverse skills" being an element of diversity. The definition (pasted below my signature) inspires no confidence that it is not going to be an instrument manipulated to maintain the status quo. I think it's both hard to measure and arguably applicable to anyone. The edits from Renata in the Google Doc hint that maybe the seven diversity elements are not sufficiently exhaustive, and I think that's true, but we seem to have been okay with all of the elements that were identified, and I'm wondering if that is the case.

? Ayden

Diverse Skills: Diversity in skills contributes to the quality of ICANN policy formulation, decision-making and outreach. It is important to highlight and advocate the advantages of individuals bringing different and diverse skills sets into ICANN's many activities. All activities and groups within ICANN will benefit from having a diverse range of skills available. Outcomes formulated from diverse skills and knowledge will have a higher probability of being accepted by a diverse community. Increased diversity would help expand the diversity of skills within ICANN. Thus, achieving diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
> Local Time: 8 January 2018 2:40 PM
> UTC Time: 8 January 2018 13:40
> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> At glance, it is seems ok to me. I will read again for proof reading.
>
> Le lun. 8 janv. 2018 ? 07:42, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a ?crit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you know we have several public comments draft to endorse in coming days.
>> the draft on CCWG recommendation on diversity was put for consultation for weeks and received some comments.
>>
>> you can find the draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit# . I made some suggestions and put comments myself there.
>> We need to clean-up the draft and prepare for review and endorsement soon within this week. comments and proof-reading would be helpful.
>>
>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan. our internal deadline for endorsement should be the 13th 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/a21ef70d/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 01:15:54 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:15:54 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
In-Reply-To: <t9LDKN6eoZaGd5dLjZWtuX2tWiJy5SdoOH3tyQgnPMTWIoOxl4n3PqBvA0nPGLTTGsfyFSXamytC2sXf8bpEuDK8a0hVeiS_3lT3oy2vutw=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThm7Er3ZcR0fDKmTRb4qn82oBvs5vHzCt7z_q3Mni5Db=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcNkfcr-SWyDYUVSP-uz1vPkOkJg6cAw8O0UzOdR_d00g@mail.gmail.com>
 <t9LDKN6eoZaGd5dLjZWtuX2tWiJy5SdoOH3tyQgnPMTWIoOxl4n3PqBvA0nPGLTTGsfyFSXamytC2sXf8bpEuDK8a0hVeiS_3lT3oy2vutw=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThki=_jbyKy_hudrGTp2bWVzLzBDyT2cYotcXerVpish3w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.
I believe we can finalize the draft. it was shared for weeks for
consultation but we didn't get enough input.
as co-rapporteur of that subgroup, I really hope that my own group submits
a comment. I believe that the group could do more but it was hard to find
consensus in some areas. my conclusion was at the end that we need to get
some foundations that can be used later and not risk to have nothing. with
regard to the summary, I think the subgroup will analyze the comments and
not waiting for it if we don't have that many responses, based on other
subgroups experience.

with regard to diversity skills, I am neutral. it was discussed several
times in the subgroup and was something advocated by SSAC representative
which explained that SSAC usually looks for diversity of background (for
example to not end up with only DNS operators). there was the argument that
can be used to dismiss candidates in nomcom for example. we can suggest
text to clarify that element so it can provide guidance during
implementation.

I think the current list is acceptable. to be honest, I am not sure to
which extent we can add more and be more granular.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-10 7:52 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Firstly, thanks to all who were involved in drafting this comment.
>
> I have now done a very heavy edit of the Google Doc, so if you have
> already reviewed it, please can you consider reviewing it again, as I have
> made many changes.
>
> That said, I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet.
> When I look over the comment I think, what is it that we have suggested
> here that we would like to see in the staff summary of comments received?
> I'm not sure. I don't think our ASK is very clear.
>
> I have some issues with the elements of diversity which the subgroup
> identified, but as I was not involved in their work, I don't have the
> background to know how they were determined. I have serious concerns around
> "diverse skills" being an element of diversity. The definition (pasted
> below my signature) inspires no confidence that it is not going to be an
> instrument manipulated to maintain the status quo. I think it's both hard
> to measure and arguably applicable to anyone. The edits from Renata in the
> Google Doc hint that maybe the seven diversity elements are not
> sufficiently exhaustive, and I think that's true, but we seem to have been
> okay with all of the elements that were identified, and I'm wondering if
> that is the case.
>
> ? Ayden
>
> Diverse Skills: Diversity in skills contributes to the quality of ICANN
> policy formulation, decision-making and outreach. It is important to
> highlight and advocate the advantages of individuals bringing different and
> diverse skills sets into ICANN's many activities. All activities and groups
> within ICANN will benefit from having a diverse range of skills available.
> Outcomes formulated from diverse skills and knowledge will have a higher
> probability of being accepted by a diverse community. Increased diversity
> would help expand the diversity of skills within ICANN. Thus, achieving
> diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and
> diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many
> skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
> Local Time: 8 January 2018 2:40 PM
> UTC Time: 8 January 2018 13:40
> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> At glance, it is seems ok to me. I will read again for proof reading.
>
> Le lun. 8 janv. 2018 ? 07:42, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
> ?crit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as you know we have several public comments draft to endorse in coming
>> days.
>> the draft on CCWG recommendation on diversity was put for consultation
>> for weeks and received some comments.
>>
>> you can find the draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/
>> 1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit# . I made some
>> suggestions and put comments myself there.
>> We need to clean-up the draft and prepare for review and endorsement soon
>> within this week. comments and proof-reading would be helpful.
>>
>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan. our internal deadline for
>> endorsement should be the 13th 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/4c5af00d/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Jan 10 01:59:10 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 18:59:10 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on the CCT-RT report
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxceE0M5dv4K=h_-0kLkhXEqd7mg=6i0Lh6KheX8ujUJtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADzHdxceE0M5dv4K=h_-0kLkhXEqd7mg=6i0Lh6KheX8ujUJtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <m0AEfTI-S6y_ffDjWFhBU3QZQ3xN4IiYYrmUye2xKOqxbcnXdyjc970ily7hwEfJhIHlXjAb9aN8jUGoUnZUXJZAVUmDYsVnt5OLrWgQVB0=@ferdeline.com>

I just sent a brief comments to the main list; but for our reference, here are our two earlier comments on this report. I suggest reading the May one if this topic is new to you:

May comment - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17/attachments/20170520/f90bb73f/CCTRTInitialDraftCommentsforNCSG.pdf

October comment - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-sadag-final-09aug17/attachments/20171005/f9a4dc6b/StatisticalAnalysisofDNSAbuseingTLDsSADAGReportNCSGComment-0001.pdf

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on the CCT-RT report
> Local Time: 9 January 2018 3:51 PM
> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 14:51
> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
> To: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Dear All,
>
> The Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team has recently issued a new version of their report by adding new sections to the previous one. They sought to receive comments on these new sections only. The draft version of the [NCSG comment](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit) is now ready and I encourage everyone to take a look and give feedback. However given the deadline (January 15th is the hard deadline which extended from January 8th), it is better not to bring new ideas without rationale. For instance, all comments so far are against having a DNS Dispute Reolsution Policy, therefore if somebody does agree with this DADRP, please state that alongside witth a justfication (one sentence or two) supporting you idea.
>
> I would also like to thank every member who worked on this, especially Kathy Kleiman, Juan Manual, Rafik, etc. Your contributions are outstanding.
>
> Both the draft and the report are attached.
>
> --
> Regards
> @__f_f__
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/256747b6/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Jan 10 02:08:12 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 19:08:12 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThki=_jbyKy_hudrGTp2bWVzLzBDyT2cYotcXerVpish3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThm7Er3ZcR0fDKmTRb4qn82oBvs5vHzCt7z_q3Mni5Db=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcNkfcr-SWyDYUVSP-uz1vPkOkJg6cAw8O0UzOdR_d00g@mail.gmail.com>
 <t9LDKN6eoZaGd5dLjZWtuX2tWiJy5SdoOH3tyQgnPMTWIoOxl4n3PqBvA0nPGLTTGsfyFSXamytC2sXf8bpEuDK8a0hVeiS_3lT3oy2vutw=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThki=_jbyKy_hudrGTp2bWVzLzBDyT2cYotcXerVpish3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bmbpnP8Pcg5iLDh-uGHQH57SqkxCM5Ba8_nwB6CInn2TrJ0Z-qoo7TE0BBVOIp5DCspHD_jLplZdWGsSc7OazHPTTMS3DbcS5GKS8bt2R_o=@ferdeline.com>

Yes, I think it is better to submit something than nothing at all.

However, I also think - and I am speaking generally here, and not specifically about this diversity comment - that we need to be clearer with what changes we want to see reflected in the final report. I find we often use vague language, because yes more community consultation is always required, but don't go into specifics. We shouldn't always be about the process; sometimes someone else can make that argument, which is important, and we should be more forceful in what changes we want to see. Just a thought...

One day as a PC I would like to see us discuss campaign objectives for the year ahead. Perhaps we need to try taking a leaf out of the Council's book and have a Strategic Planning Session of our own [on a smaller scale]?

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
> Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:15 AM
> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 23:15
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the comments.
> I believe we can finalize the draft. it was shared for weeks for consultation but we didn't get enough input.
> as co-rapporteur of that subgroup, I really hope that my own group submits a comment. I believe that the group could do more but it was hard to find consensus in some areas. my conclusion was at the end that we need to get some foundations that can be used later and not risk to have nothing. with regard to the summary, I think the subgroup will analyze the comments and not waiting for it if we don't have that many responses, based on other subgroups experience.
>
> with regard to diversity skills, I am neutral. it was discussed several times in the subgroup and was something advocated by SSAC representative which explained that SSAC usually looks for diversity of background (for example to not end up with only DNS operators). there was the argument that can be used to dismiss candidates in nomcom for example. we can suggest text to clarify that element so it can provide guidance during implementation.
>
> I think the current list is acceptable. to be honest, I am not sure to which extent we can add more and be more granular.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-10 7:52 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Firstly, thanks to all who were involved in drafting this comment.
>>
>> I have now done a very heavy edit of the Google Doc, so if you have already reviewed it, please can you consider reviewing it again, as I have made many changes.
>>
>> That said, I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet. When I look over the comment I think, what is it that we have suggested here that we would like to see in the staff summary of comments received? I'm not sure. I don't think our ASK is very clear.
>>
>> I have some issues with the elements of diversity which the subgroup identified, but as I was not involved in their work, I don't have the background to know how they were determined. I have serious concerns around "diverse skills" being an element of diversity. The definition (pasted below my signature) inspires no confidence that it is not going to be an instrument manipulated to maintain the status quo. I think it's both hard to measure and arguably applicable to anyone. The edits from Renata in the Google Doc hint that maybe the seven diversity elements are not sufficiently exhaustive, and I think that's true, but we seem to have been okay with all of the elements that were identified, and I'm wondering if that is the case.
>>
>> ? Ayden
>>
>> Diverse Skills: Diversity in skills contributes to the quality of ICANN policy formulation, decision-making and outreach. It is important to highlight and advocate the advantages of individuals bringing different and diverse skills sets into ICANN's many activities. All activities and groups within ICANN will benefit from having a diverse range of skills available. Outcomes formulated from diverse skills and knowledge will have a higher probability of being accepted by a diverse community. Increased diversity would help expand the diversity of skills within ICANN. Thus, achieving diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation.
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
>>> Local Time: 8 January 2018 2:40 PM
>>> UTC Time: 8 January 2018 13:40
>>> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> At glance, it is seems ok to me. I will read again for proof reading.
>>>
>>> Le lun. 8 janv. 2018 ? 07:42, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a ?crit :
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> as you know we have several public comments draft to endorse in coming days.
>>>> the draft on CCWG recommendation on diversity was put for consultation for weeks and received some comments.
>>>>
>>>> you can find the draft here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit# . I made some suggestions and put comments myself there.
>>>> We need to clean-up the draft and prepare for review and endorsement soon within this week. comments and proof-reading would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan. our internal deadline for endorsement should be the 13th 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/3f638bdc/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 03:03:04 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:03:04 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
In-Reply-To: <bmbpnP8Pcg5iLDh-uGHQH57SqkxCM5Ba8_nwB6CInn2TrJ0Z-qoo7TE0BBVOIp5DCspHD_jLplZdWGsSc7OazHPTTMS3DbcS5GKS8bt2R_o=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThm7Er3ZcR0fDKmTRb4qn82oBvs5vHzCt7z_q3Mni5Db=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcNkfcr-SWyDYUVSP-uz1vPkOkJg6cAw8O0UzOdR_d00g@mail.gmail.com>
 <t9LDKN6eoZaGd5dLjZWtuX2tWiJy5SdoOH3tyQgnPMTWIoOxl4n3PqBvA0nPGLTTGsfyFSXamytC2sXf8bpEuDK8a0hVeiS_3lT3oy2vutw=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThki=_jbyKy_hudrGTp2bWVzLzBDyT2cYotcXerVpish3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <bmbpnP8Pcg5iLDh-uGHQH57SqkxCM5Ba8_nwB6CInn2TrJ0Z-qoo7TE0BBVOIp5DCspHD_jLplZdWGsSc7OazHPTTMS3DbcS5GKS8bt2R_o=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=9wjHiOcm=Dyz2qVr+9qTXVMrJHFJOYV9kL272YZ5ftQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

regarding the changes, it is really depending on the input we get during
the consultation. there were few suggestions from few members. I am not
going to assume that people are happy with the recommendations but I guess
they didn't have something specific in mind as a recommendation. if PC
members have some suggestions in term of change regarding the report
recommendations, I think we accommodate that.

Best,

Rafik


2018-01-10 9:08 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Yes, I think it is better to submit something than nothing at all.
>
> However, I also think - and I am speaking generally here, and not
> specifically about this diversity comment - that we need to be clearer with
> what changes we want to see reflected in the final report. I find we often
> use vague language, because yes more community consultation is always
> required, but don't go into specifics. We shouldn't always be about the
> process; sometimes someone else can make that argument, which is important,
> and we should be more forceful in what changes we want to see. Just a
> thought...
>
> One day as a PC I would like to see us discuss campaign objectives for the
> year ahead. Perhaps we need to try taking a leaf out of the Council's book
> and have a Strategic Planning Session of our own [on a smaller scale]?
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
> Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:15 AM
> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 23:15
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the comments.
> I believe we can finalize the draft. it was shared for weeks for
> consultation but we didn't get enough input.
> as co-rapporteur of that subgroup, I really hope that my own group submits
> a comment. I believe that the group could do more but it was hard to find
> consensus in some areas. my conclusion was at the end that we need to get
> some foundations that can be used later and not risk to have nothing. with
> regard to the summary, I think the subgroup will analyze the comments and
> not waiting for it if we don't have that many responses, based on other
> subgroups experience.
>
> with regard to diversity skills, I am neutral. it was discussed several
> times in the subgroup and was something advocated by SSAC representative
> which explained that SSAC usually looks for diversity of background (for
> example to not end up with only DNS operators). there was the argument that
> can be used to dismiss candidates in nomcom for example. we can suggest
> text to clarify that element so it can provide guidance during
> implementation.
>
> I think the current list is acceptable. to be honest, I am not sure to
> which extent we can add more and be more granular.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-10 7:52 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Firstly, thanks to all who were involved in drafting this comment.
>>
>> I have now done a very heavy edit of the Google Doc, so if you have
>> already reviewed it, please can you consider reviewing it again, as I have
>> made many changes.
>>
>> That said, I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet.
>> When I look over the comment I think, what is it that we have suggested
>> here that we would like to see in the staff summary of comments received?
>> I'm not sure. I don't think our ASK is very clear.
>>
>> I have some issues with the elements of diversity which the subgroup
>> identified, but as I was not involved in their work, I don't have the
>> background to know how they were determined. I have serious concerns around
>> "diverse skills" being an element of diversity. The definition (pasted
>> below my signature) inspires no confidence that it is not going to be an
>> instrument manipulated to maintain the status quo. I think it's both hard
>> to measure and arguably applicable to anyone. The edits from Renata in the
>> Google Doc hint that maybe the seven diversity elements are not
>> sufficiently exhaustive, and I think that's true, but we seem to have been
>> okay with all of the elements that were identified, and I'm wondering if
>> that is the case.
>>
>> ? Ayden
>>
>> Diverse Skills: Diversity in skills contributes to the quality of ICANN
>> policy formulation, decision-making and outreach. It is important to
>> highlight and advocate the advantages of individuals bringing different and
>> diverse skills sets into ICANN's many activities. All activities and groups
>> within ICANN will benefit from having a diverse range of skills available.
>> Outcomes formulated from diverse skills and knowledge will have a higher
>> probability of being accepted by a diverse community. Increased diversity
>> would help expand the diversity of skills within ICANN. Thus, achieving
>> diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and
>> diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many
>> skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
>> Local Time: 8 January 2018 2:40 PM
>> UTC Time: 8 January 2018 13:40
>> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> At glance, it is seems ok to me. I will read again for proof reading.
>>
>> Le lun. 8 janv. 2018 ? 07:42, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
>> ?crit :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> as you know we have several public comments draft to endorse in coming
>>> days.
>>> the draft on CCWG recommendation on diversity was put for consultation
>>> for weeks and received some comments.
>>>
>>> you can find the draft here https://docs.google.com/d
>>> ocument/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit# . I made
>>> some suggestions and put comments myself there.
>>> We need to clean-up the draft and prepare for review and endorsement
>>> soon within this week. comments and proof-reading would be helpful.
>>>
>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan. our internal deadline for
>>> endorsement should be the 13th 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/ed001ec8/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 04:41:37 2018
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 21:41:37 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Brochure
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvCFF5hfmgk=bFs611FhWqMY4MnJLnxDRkFDMBf1CnTthQ@mail.gmail.com>

We want to do a simple short brochure for NCSG . I shared a simple doc with
you here. Please add your comments, desired text in the Google Doc. We
don't have much time, have shared it with EC as well. Let me know your
comments very soon.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18QQ-r5wGsqUz9sNLFhI7xVvZ1ksm4gX7xZ
ihUcxfAkc/edit?usp=sharing
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/18QQ-r5wGsqUz9sNLFhI7xVvZ1ksm4gX7xZihUcxfAkc/edit?usp=sharing>

Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/8e4a73eb/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Jan 10 05:10:28 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 22:10:28 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Brochure
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvCFF5hfmgk=bFs611FhWqMY4MnJLnxDRkFDMBf1CnTthQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1qJvCFF5hfmgk=bFs611FhWqMY4MnJLnxDRkFDMBf1CnTthQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <qS12Yy_gwplviQ-rcjR4ZMpRT_kxWMEmcDdDqTdMJ5Imx0M6_IPOSZbx5U9NkSR06xOmP2sdmWQKizj8WmM95oeHASVvM3qkF4T9G7iwync=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks Farzi; I've made some edits now directly to the Google Doc. I've added some bullet points on what we do, our operating principles, and have expanded upon the NCUC's mission to note that the NCUC supports a global and multilingual Internet, along with fair and balanced domain name disputes.

- Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Brochure
> Local Time: 10 January 2018 3:41 AM
> UTC Time: 10 January 2018 02:41
> From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> We want to do a simple short brochure for NCSG . I shared a simple doc with you here. Please add your comments, desired text in the Google Doc. We don't have much time, have shared it with EC as well. Let me know your comments very soon.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18QQ-r5wGsqUz9sNLFhI7xVvZ1ksm4gX7xZihUcxfAkc/edit?usp=sharinghttps://docs.google.com/document/d/18QQ-r5wGsqUz9sNLFhI7xVvZ1ksm4gX7xZihUcxfAkc/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180109/fd9349a7/attachment.htm>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 09:51:11 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:51:11 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
In-Reply-To: <bmbpnP8Pcg5iLDh-uGHQH57SqkxCM5Ba8_nwB6CInn2TrJ0Z-qoo7TE0BBVOIp5DCspHD_jLplZdWGsSc7OazHPTTMS3DbcS5GKS8bt2R_o=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThm7Er3ZcR0fDKmTRb4qn82oBvs5vHzCt7z_q3Mni5Db=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADzHdxcNkfcr-SWyDYUVSP-uz1vPkOkJg6cAw8O0UzOdR_d00g@mail.gmail.com>
 <t9LDKN6eoZaGd5dLjZWtuX2tWiJy5SdoOH3tyQgnPMTWIoOxl4n3PqBvA0nPGLTTGsfyFSXamytC2sXf8bpEuDK8a0hVeiS_3lT3oy2vutw=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThki=_jbyKy_hudrGTp2bWVzLzBDyT2cYotcXerVpish3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <bmbpnP8Pcg5iLDh-uGHQH57SqkxCM5Ba8_nwB6CInn2TrJ0Z-qoo7TE0BBVOIp5DCspHD_jLplZdWGsSc7OazHPTTMS3DbcS5GKS8bt2R_o=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxdVzDL20Z8Z1X32txfO75MaXr25HEeO3Pqe0yGxfBNn7Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ayden

You have just tackled the *Talon d'Achille* of the report and It is what I
was trying to highlight in the draft. Indeed, without a knowledge of how
they came up with the seven principles it is very hard to argue about and
discuss why this or why not that. However I believe having a mechanism to
modify  (insert delete or update) the list in the future will solve the
issue. That mechanism implementation was suggested in the draft along with
a unified scoreboard that will help compare diversity among stakeholder
groups. The best thing would have been to have a diversity
framework/architecture  : more flexible, scalable.



Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

Le 10 janv. 2018 1:08 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> a ?crit :

> Yes, I think it is better to submit something than nothing at all.
>
> However, I also think - and I am speaking generally here, and not
> specifically about this diversity comment - that we need to be clearer with
> what changes we want to see reflected in the final report. I find we often
> use vague language, because yes more community consultation is always
> required, but don't go into specifics. We shouldn't always be about the
> process; sometimes someone else can make that argument, which is important,
> and we should be more forceful in what changes we want to see. Just a
> thought...
>
> One day as a PC I would like to see us discuss campaign objectives for the
> year ahead. Perhaps we need to try taking a leaf out of the Council's book
> and have a Strategic Planning Session of our own [on a smaller scale]?
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
> Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:15 AM
> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 23:15
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the comments.
> I believe we can finalize the draft. it was shared for weeks for
> consultation but we didn't get enough input.
> as co-rapporteur of that subgroup, I really hope that my own group submits
> a comment. I believe that the group could do more but it was hard to find
> consensus in some areas. my conclusion was at the end that we need to get
> some foundations that can be used later and not risk to have nothing. with
> regard to the summary, I think the subgroup will analyze the comments and
> not waiting for it if we don't have that many responses, based on other
> subgroups experience.
>
> with regard to diversity skills, I am neutral. it was discussed several
> times in the subgroup and was something advocated by SSAC representative
> which explained that SSAC usually looks for diversity of background (for
> example to not end up with only DNS operators). there was the argument that
> can be used to dismiss candidates in nomcom for example. we can suggest
> text to clarify that element so it can provide guidance during
> implementation.
>
> I think the current list is acceptable. to be honest, I am not sure to
> which extent we can add more and be more granular.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-10 7:52 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Firstly, thanks to all who were involved in drafting this comment.
>>
>> I have now done a very heavy edit of the Google Doc, so if you have
>> already reviewed it, please can you consider reviewing it again, as I have
>> made many changes.
>>
>> That said, I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet.
>> When I look over the comment I think, what is it that we have suggested
>> here that we would like to see in the staff summary of comments received?
>> I'm not sure. I don't think our ASK is very clear.
>>
>> I have some issues with the elements of diversity which the subgroup
>> identified, but as I was not involved in their work, I don't have the
>> background to know how they were determined. I have serious concerns around
>> "diverse skills" being an element of diversity. The definition (pasted
>> below my signature) inspires no confidence that it is not going to be an
>> instrument manipulated to maintain the status quo. I think it's both hard
>> to measure and arguably applicable to anyone. The edits from Renata in the
>> Google Doc hint that maybe the seven diversity elements are not
>> sufficiently exhaustive, and I think that's true, but we seem to have been
>> okay with all of the elements that were identified, and I'm wondering if
>> that is the case.
>>
>> ? Ayden
>>
>> Diverse Skills: Diversity in skills contributes to the quality of ICANN
>> policy formulation, decision-making and outreach. It is important to
>> highlight and advocate the advantages of individuals bringing different and
>> diverse skills sets into ICANN's many activities. All activities and groups
>> within ICANN will benefit from having a diverse range of skills available.
>> Outcomes formulated from diverse skills and knowledge will have a higher
>> probability of being accepted by a diverse community. Increased diversity
>> would help expand the diversity of skills within ICANN. Thus, achieving
>> diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and
>> diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many
>> skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
>> Local Time: 8 January 2018 2:40 PM
>> UTC Time: 8 January 2018 13:40
>> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> At glance, it is seems ok to me. I will read again for proof reading.
>>
>> Le lun. 8 janv. 2018 ? 07:42, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
>> ?crit :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> as you know we have several public comments draft to endorse in coming
>>> days.
>>> the draft on CCWG recommendation on diversity was put for consultation
>>> for weeks and received some comments.
>>>
>>> you can find the draft here https://docs.google.com/d
>>> ocument/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit# . I made
>>> some suggestions and put comments myself there.
>>> We need to clean-up the draft and prepare for review and endorsement
>>> soon within this week. comments and proof-reading would be helpful.
>>>
>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan. our internal deadline for
>>> endorsement should be the 13th 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/5e03c873/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 10:04:09 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:04:09 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Brochure
In-Reply-To: <qS12Yy_gwplviQ-rcjR4ZMpRT_kxWMEmcDdDqTdMJ5Imx0M6_IPOSZbx5U9NkSR06xOmP2sdmWQKizj8WmM95oeHASVvM3qkF4T9G7iwync=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAN1qJvCFF5hfmgk=bFs611FhWqMY4MnJLnxDRkFDMBf1CnTthQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <qS12Yy_gwplviQ-rcjR4ZMpRT_kxWMEmcDdDqTdMJ5Imx0M6_IPOSZbx5U9NkSR06xOmP2sdmWQKizj8WmM95oeHASVvM3qkF4T9G7iwync=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <8A945FCB-9F6A-483A-A28D-BE44D380DA07@gmail.com>

Good stuff, thanks for this effort! Can we add a line on how to reach out to us? Like a contact email or the link to the wiki pages? 

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

Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

> On Jan 10, 2018, at 5:10 AM, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Farzi; I've made some edits now directly to the Google Doc. I've added some bullet points on what we do, our operating principles, and have expanded upon the NCUC's mission to note that the NCUC supports a global and multilingual Internet, along with fair and balanced domain name disputes.
> 
> - Ayden  
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Brochure
>> Local Time: 10 January 2018 3:41 AM
>> UTC Time: 10 January 2018 02:41
>> From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> 
>> We want to do a simple short brochure for NCSG . I shared a simple doc with you here. Please add your comments, desired text in the Google Doc. We don't have much time, have shared it with EC as well. Let me know your comments very soon. 
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18QQ-r5wGsqUz9sNLFhI7xVvZ1ksm4gX7xZihUcxfAkc/edit?usp=sharing
>> 
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/23552bc2/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 12:49:20 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:49:20 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_GNSO_Cou?=
	=?utf-8?q?ncil=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Bud?=
	=?utf-8?q?get_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=GPdT_Y+b1uwO9NLwKX5TJavqoAdsMucAB_KC8aa8E+w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I propose to send this call for volunteers below to the list and open it
till Friday. if no objection, I will send it today so we can kick-off the
process

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget
and Operations

Hi everyone,

The GNSO council created a new standing committee on ICANN's budget and
operations (SCBO), in order to input in the annual fiscal year budgeting
process. It issued a call for volunteers for subject matters experts from
the different stakeholder groups and constituencies to join it. The SCBO
will start working next week in order to cover the new ICANN FY19 budget
public comment.

NCSG will send the names of members who have experience in budget and
finance matters and would like to volunteer at the SCBO. Please read
carefully the attached document describing the committee work and how to
participate

Expression of interest (EOI) should be sent to Farznaeh and me in order for
the policy committee to review it. Please describe in EOI your experience
regarding budget and finance and/or also your experience in relevant areas.

The deadline for submitting the EOI is this Friday 12th Jan.

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Rafik



2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

>
> Hi all,
>
> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start
> working on the budget soon.
> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls
> concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of
> names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the
> description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s
> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier
> today to the SG/C Chairs.
>
>
>
> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by
> SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Nathalie
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/021727c5/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 13:28:16 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:28:16 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_GNSO_Cou?=
	=?utf-8?q?ncil=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Bud?=
	=?utf-8?q?get_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=GPdT_Y+b1uwO9NLwKX5TJavqoAdsMucAB_KC8aa8E+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=GPdT_Y+b1uwO9NLwKX5TJavqoAdsMucAB_KC8aa8E+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWrTSiZajr4C-hDAM+_u3gMik26H0uoBQC=86LWfBvVUbA@mail.gmail.com>

Ok by me. Can you just clarify the time for Friday 12th deadline? Say
Friday 12th at 11pm UTC for example?

------------------------
**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>)

2018-01-10 12:49 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> I propose to send this call for volunteers below to the list and open it
> till Friday. if no objection, I will send it today so we can kick-off the
> process
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget
> and Operations
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> The GNSO council created a new standing committee on ICANN's budget and
> operations (SCBO), in order to input in the annual fiscal year budgeting
> process. It issued a call for volunteers for subject matters experts from
> the different stakeholder groups and constituencies to join it. The SCBO
> will start working next week in order to cover the new ICANN FY19 budget
> public comment.
>
> NCSG will send the names of members who have experience in budget and
> finance matters and would like to volunteer at the SCBO. Please read
> carefully the attached document describing the committee work and how to
> participate
>
> Expression of interest (EOI) should be sent to Farznaeh and me in order
> for the policy committee to review it. Please describe in EOI your
> experience regarding budget and finance and/or also your experience in
> relevant areas.
>
> The deadline for submitting the EOI is this Friday 12th Jan.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>
> 2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start
>> working on the budget soon.
>> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls
>> concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of
>> names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
>> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the
>> description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s
>> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier
>> today to the SG/C Chairs.
>>
>>
>>
>> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by
>> SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nathalie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/8a54f299/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Jan 10 15:19:50 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:19:50 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?utf-8?q?=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_GNSO_Cou?=
 =?utf-8?q?ncil=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Budget_and?=
 =?utf-8?q?_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWrTSiZajr4C-hDAM+_u3gMik26H0uoBQC=86LWfBvVUbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=GPdT_Y+b1uwO9NLwKX5TJavqoAdsMucAB_KC8aa8E+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWrTSiZajr4C-hDAM+_u3gMik26H0uoBQC=86LWfBvVUbA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <udIPOvCuna9hRcozLJ-ARGmOOWik9Czm1429TkdxFkDD7G3ZDVJlNE0lALhECPAgJNzG80nU3x7C9LAR3konodjsnoEpS3ueBOhxFPV4qSs=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

I would like to suggest that we use a basic grading rubric to evaluate the candidates in a consistent manner. I propose the attached one, but am of course open to edits. [It's also in a Google Sheet here.](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LINFteanPk1CUG1Y6TIy3xYFhUEa0wYRweGY_jB4fSo/edit?usp=sharing) Perhaps we could share it with the open call so that candidates understand how we will select our representatives?

Regarding the text of the call itself, it looks fine to me, though I suggest fixing the spelling of Farzaneh's name ;-) and mentioning we will choose "up to three representatives."

Many thanks for this Rafik,

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
> Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:28 PM
> UTC Time: 10 January 2018 11:28
> From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Ok by me. Can you just clarify the time for Friday 12th deadline? Say Friday 12th at 11pm UTC for example?
>
> ------------------------
> *[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))
>
> 2018-01-10 12:49 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I propose to send this call for volunteers below to the list and open it till Friday. if no objection, I will send it today so we can kick-off the process
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The GNSO council created a new standing committee on ICANN's budget and operations (SCBO), in order to input in the annual fiscal year budgeting process. It issued a call for volunteers for subject matters experts from the different stakeholder groups and constituencies to join it. The SCBO will start working next week in order to cover the new ICANN FY19 budget public comment.
>>
>> NCSG will send the names of members who have experience in budget and finance matters and would like to volunteer at the SCBO. Please read carefully the attached document describing the committee work and how to participate
>>
>> Expression of interest (EOI) should be sent to Farznaeh and me in order for the policy committee to review it. Please describe in EOI your experience regarding budget and finance and/or also your experience in relevant areas.
>>
>> The deadline for submitting the EOI is this Friday 12th Jan.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start working on the budget soon.
>>> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
>>> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier today to the SG/C Chairs.
>>>
>>> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Nathalie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/14117d2b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCBO-NCSG-PC-Criteria-10Jan18.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/14117d2b/attachment.pdf>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Wed Jan 10 15:31:24 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:31:24 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] reserve fund comment - ICANN responds to us
Message-ID: <1r6c38AJQDvspzFtdSJ5Z6TzAZVzptrz9IhQXx7IQioGr7Wi9uJror5sqSjFfi07b_c26xgrWzY1UybhQjGfiI_ecqF9t5vwI9WMuF2DPv4=@ferdeline.com>

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-reserve-fund-08jan18-en.pdf

Page 7 (Page 11 of the PDF)

To the NCSG (emphasis added):

"Thank you for the comment. The suggestions that auction proceeds should not be used for replenishment of the Reserve Fund, and that any replenishment should come from operations excesses generated through reduced spending are noted.

The suggestions offered on how to optimize spend and allow to generate savings are noted. ICANN suggests that the NCSG also participates and contributes to the upcoming FY19 Operating Plan and Budget public comment, which will discuss some of the suggestions provided in this comment."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/3e72deb3/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Jan 10 15:33:47 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:33:47 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_GNSO_Cou?=
	=?utf-8?q?ncil=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Bud?=
	=?utf-8?q?get_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <udIPOvCuna9hRcozLJ-ARGmOOWik9Czm1429TkdxFkDD7G3ZDVJlNE0lALhECPAgJNzG80nU3x7C9LAR3konodjsnoEpS3ueBOhxFPV4qSs=@ferdeline.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=GPdT_Y+b1uwO9NLwKX5TJavqoAdsMucAB_KC8aa8E+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWrTSiZajr4C-hDAM+_u3gMik26H0uoBQC=86LWfBvVUbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <udIPOvCuna9hRcozLJ-ARGmOOWik9Czm1429TkdxFkDD7G3ZDVJlNE0lALhECPAgJNzG80nU3x7C9LAR3konodjsnoEpS3ueBOhxFPV4qSs=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmHPD9yvQdR9GizS-HqRL27ub4DdEguWdnFAbOUrZGjfw@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

thanks for the comments
1/ regarding time, I left it out intentionally. Since we got a short
deadline, we can be flexible with the end time. 23:59 in the last timezone
would be fine.
2/ the matrix will be helpful for reviewing and we should continue tweaking
it but I am not sure that we should share it with candidates. if we can
create such template for other appointments, it would be great.
3/ I fixed the typo, added suggestion about the number of representatives
and will send the call.

Best,

Rafik


















*Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget
and OperationsHi everyone,The GNSO council created a new standing committee
on ICANN's budget and operations (SCBO), in order to input in the annual
fiscal year budgeting process. It issued a call for volunteers for subject
matters experts from the different stakeholder groups and constituencies to
join it. The SCBO will start working next week in order to cover the new
ICANN FY19 budget public comment.NCSG will send the names of members (up to
three representatives) who have experience in budget and finance matters
and would like to volunteer at the SCBO. Please read carefully the attached
document describing the committee work and how to participateExpression of
interest (EOI) should be sent to Farzaneh (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
<http://gmail.com>) and me ( rafik.dammak at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>)
in order for the policy committee to review it. Please describe in EOI your
experience regarding budget and finance and/or also your experience in
relevant areas. The deadline for submitting the EOI is this Friday 12th
Jan.Thank you.Best Regards,Rafik *

2018-01-10 22:19 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to suggest that we use a basic grading rubric to evaluate the
> candidates in a consistent manner. I propose the attached one, but am of
> course open to edits. It's also in a Google Sheet here.
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LINFteanPk1CUG1Y6TIy3xYFhUEa0wYRweGY_jB4fSo/edit?usp=sharing>
> Perhaps we could share it with the open call so that candidates understand
> how we will select our representatives?
>
> Regarding the text of the call itself, it looks fine to me, though I
> suggest fixing the spelling of Farzaneh's name ;-) and mentioning we will
> choose "up to three representatives."
>
> Many thanks for this Rafik,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s
> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
> Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:28 PM
> UTC Time: 10 January 2018 11:28
> From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Ok by me. Can you just clarify the time for Friday 12th deadline? Say
> Friday 12th at 11pm UTC for example?
>
> ------------------------
> **Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
> GPG: 523644A0
> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN'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>)
>
> 2018-01-10 12:49 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I propose to send this call for volunteers below to the list and open it
>> till Friday. if no objection, I will send it today so we can kick-off the
>> process
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget
>> and Operations
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The GNSO council created a new standing committee on ICANN's budget and
>> operations (SCBO), in order to input in the annual fiscal year budgeting
>> process. It issued a call for volunteers for subject matters experts from
>> the different stakeholder groups and constituencies to join it. The SCBO
>> will start working next week in order to cover the new ICANN FY19 budget
>> public comment.
>>
>> NCSG will send the names of members who have experience in budget and
>> finance matters and would like to volunteer at the SCBO. Please read
>> carefully the attached document describing the committee work and how to
>> participate
>>
>> Expression of interest (EOI) should be sent to Farznaeh and me in order
>> for the policy committee to review it. Please describe in EOI your
>> experience regarding budget and finance and/or also your experience in
>> relevant areas.
>>
>> The deadline for submitting the EOI is this Friday 12th Jan.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start
>>> working on the budget soon.
>>> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls
>>> concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of
>>> names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
>>> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the
>>> description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s
>>> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier
>>> today to the SG/C Chairs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by
>>> SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nathalie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/a51a438a/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Jan 10 22:26:44 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:26:44 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?windows-1252?q?=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_G?=
 =?windows-1252?q?NSO_Council=92s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=92s_Budget_a?=
 =?windows-1252?q?nd_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <udIPOvCuna9hRcozLJ-ARGmOOWik9Czm1429TkdxFkDD7G3ZDVJlNE0lALhECPAgJNzG80nU3x7C9LAR3konodjsnoEpS3ueBOhxFPV4qSs=@ferdeline.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=GPdT_Y+b1uwO9NLwKX5TJavqoAdsMucAB_KC8aa8E+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWrTSiZajr4C-hDAM+_u3gMik26H0uoBQC=86LWfBvVUbA@mail.gmail.com>,
 <udIPOvCuna9hRcozLJ-ARGmOOWik9Czm1429TkdxFkDD7G3ZDVJlNE0lALhECPAgJNzG80nU3x7C9LAR3konodjsnoEpS3ueBOhxFPV4qSs=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <20180110202643.5767254.44486.88359@mail.utoronto.ca>

I agree.
Stephanie
P.s. Full disclosure: I intend to apply, so will not volunteer to help with the assessment grid.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
From: Ayden F?rdeline
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 08:20
To: Ars?ne Tungali
Reply To: Ayden F?rdeline
Cc: ncsg-pc
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations


Hi,

I would like to suggest that we use a basic grading rubric to evaluate the candidates in a consistent manner. I propose the attached one, but am of course open to edits. It's also in a Google Sheet here.<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LINFteanPk1CUG1Y6TIy3xYFhUEa0wYRweGY_jB4fSo/edit?usp=sharing> Perhaps we could share it with the open call so that candidates understand how we will select our representatives?

Regarding the text of the call itself, it looks fine to me, though I suggest fixing the spelling of Farzaneh's name ;-) and mentioning we will choose "up to three representatives."

Many thanks for this Rafik,

Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:28 PM
UTC Time: 10 January 2018 11:28
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Ok by me. Can you just clarify the time for Friday 12th deadline? Say Friday 12th at 11pm UTC for example?

------------------------
*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>)

2018-01-10 12:49 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
Hi all,

I propose to send this call for volunteers below to the list and open it till Friday. if no objection, I will send it today so we can kick-off the process

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations

Hi everyone,

The GNSO council created a new standing committee on ICANN's budget and operations (SCBO), in order to input in the annual fiscal year budgeting process. It issued a call for volunteers for subject matters experts from the different stakeholder groups and constituencies to join it. The SCBO will start working next week in order to cover the new ICANN FY19 budget public comment.

NCSG will send the names of members who have experience in budget and finance matters and would like to volunteer at the SCBO. Please read carefully the attached document describing the committee work and how to participate

Expression of interest (EOI) should be sent to Farznaeh and me in order for the policy committee to review it. Please describe in EOI your experience regarding budget and finance and/or also your experience in relevant areas.

The deadline for submitting the EOI is this Friday 12th Jan.

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Rafik



2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:

Hi all,

this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start working on the budget soon.
I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
Best,

Rafik

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


Dear all,

Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier today to the SG/C Chairs.

As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.

Kind regards,

Nathalie





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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/fce2e6ce/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Thu Jan 11 02:05:52 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:05:52 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
	=?utf-8?q?=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_GNSO_Cou?=
	=?utf-8?q?ncil=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Bud?=
	=?utf-8?q?get_and_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <20180110202643.5767254.44486.88359@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=GPdT_Y+b1uwO9NLwKX5TJavqoAdsMucAB_KC8aa8E+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWrTSiZajr4C-hDAM+_u3gMik26H0uoBQC=86LWfBvVUbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <udIPOvCuna9hRcozLJ-ARGmOOWik9Czm1429TkdxFkDD7G3ZDVJlNE0lALhECPAgJNzG80nU3x7C9LAR3konodjsnoEpS3ueBOhxFPV4qSs=@ferdeline.com>
 <20180110202643.5767254.44486.88359@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm0yFd8rMvs7b912X0K3fWe5EfGkJqD0d6WQE6H1BXizQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephanie,

reading the relevant part of the SCBO charter:
"Members of the standing committee will be comprised of volunteers from the
GNSO Council and the nomination of the chair will be determined by said
committee. Each Stakeholder Group is expected to designate* at least 1
Council member and 1 alternate *to this effort. "
Ayden expressed interest to continue as a member in the committee. Martin
was also involved in the drafting team. I understand that we can have more
than 1 councilor there.
the current call is from subject matter experts not part of the council.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-11 5:26 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
utoronto.ca>:

> I agree.
> Stephanie
> P.s. Full disclosure: I intend to apply, so will not volunteer to help
> with the assessment grid.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
> *From: *Ayden F?rdeline
> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 10, 2018 08:20
> *To: *Ars?ne Tungali
> *Reply To: *Ayden F?rdeline
> *Cc: *ncsg-pc
> *Subject: *Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s
> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to suggest that we use a basic grading rubric to evaluate the
> candidates in a consistent manner. I propose the attached one, but am of
> course open to edits. It's also in a Google Sheet here.
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LINFteanPk1CUG1Y6TIy3xYFhUEa0wYRweGY_jB4fSo/edit?usp=sharing>
> Perhaps we could share it with the open call so that candidates understand
> how we will select our representatives?
>
> Regarding the text of the call itself, it looks fine to me, though I
> suggest fixing the spelling of Farzaneh's name ;-) and mentioning we will
> choose "up to three representatives."
>
> Many thanks for this Rafik,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s
> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
> Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:28 PM
> UTC Time: 10 January 2018 11:28
> From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Ok by me. Can you just clarify the time for Friday 12th deadline? Say
> Friday 12th at 11pm UTC for example?
>
> ------------------------
> **Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, * Mabingwa Forum
> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
> GPG: 523644A0
> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN'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>)
>
> 2018-01-10 12:49 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I propose to send this call for volunteers below to the list and open it
>> till Friday. if no objection, I will send it today so we can kick-off the
>> process
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget
>> and Operations
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The GNSO council created a new standing committee on ICANN's budget and
>> operations (SCBO), in order to input in the annual fiscal year budgeting
>> process. It issued a call for volunteers for subject matters experts from
>> the different stakeholder groups and constituencies to join it. The SCBO
>> will start working next week in order to cover the new ICANN FY19 budget
>> public comment.
>>
>> NCSG will send the names of members who have experience in budget and
>> finance matters and would like to volunteer at the SCBO. Please read
>> carefully the attached document describing the committee work and how to
>> participate
>>
>> Expression of interest (EOI) should be sent to Farznaeh and me in order
>> for the policy committee to review it. Please describe in EOI your
>> experience regarding budget and finance and/or also your experience in
>> relevant areas.
>>
>> The deadline for submitting the EOI is this Friday 12th Jan.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start
>>> working on the budget soon.
>>> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls
>>> concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of
>>> names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
>>> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the
>>> description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s
>>> Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier
>>> today to the SG/C Chairs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by
>>> SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nathalie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180111/208651b0/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Thu Jan 11 09:48:16 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 02:48:16 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC]
 =?utf-8?q?=5Bcouncil=5D_Call_for_Volunteers=3A_GNSO_Cou?=
 =?utf-8?q?ncil=E2=80=99s_Standing_Committee_on_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Budget_and?=
 =?utf-8?q?_Operations?=
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm0yFd8rMvs7b912X0K3fWe5EfGkJqD0d6WQE6H1BXizQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <026F2893-8D0F-4D3E-A39B-710FF0AE3961@icann.org>
 <77172112-9C3D-4AA7-B118-602A194A07B0@icann.org>
 <CAH5sThnd2sSoPjbgzSfc=5XWYDdOQBhBqB4ybOD3XV6ySuw2Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=GPdT_Y+b1uwO9NLwKX5TJavqoAdsMucAB_KC8aa8E+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWrTSiZajr4C-hDAM+_u3gMik26H0uoBQC=86LWfBvVUbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <udIPOvCuna9hRcozLJ-ARGmOOWik9Czm1429TkdxFkDD7G3ZDVJlNE0lALhECPAgJNzG80nU3x7C9LAR3konodjsnoEpS3ueBOhxFPV4qSs=@ferdeline.com>
 <20180110202643.5767254.44486.88359@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThm0yFd8rMvs7b912X0K3fWe5EfGkJqD0d6WQE6H1BXizQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9nlbP1KYjWwC-E-hzUnTTemMAv2RwweBb3ueLEww29tOGksr13tD2YuTdLnU2iIJQVZ_F_jUYhnjFEyZ9_l1JVMyPmL6EmsGyvhQKQ3nf1s=@ferdeline.com>

This is my understanding as well; we must have at least one Councilor on the SCBO, but there is no limit to how many participate. I hope more join the calls - with only four members at present, the calls are very lonely!

Kind regards, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
> Local Time: 11 January 2018 1:05 AM
> UTC Time: 11 January 2018 00:05
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, Ars?ne Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> reading the relevant part of the SCBO charter:
> "Members of the standing committee will be comprised of volunteers from the GNSO Council and the nomination of the chair will be determined by said committee. Each Stakeholder Group is expected to designate at least 1 Council member and 1 alternate to this effort. "
> Ayden expressed interest to continue as a member in the committee. Martin was also involved in the drafting team. I understand that we can have more than 1 councilor there.
> the current call is from subject matter experts not part of the council.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-11 5:26 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>
>> I agree.
>> Stephanie
>> P.s. Full disclosure: I intend to apply, so will not volunteer to help with the assessment grid.
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>> From: Ayden F?rdeline
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 08:20
>> To: Ars?ne Tungali
>> Reply To: Ayden F?rdeline
>> Cc: ncsg-pc
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to suggest that we use a basic grading rubric to evaluate the candidates in a consistent manner. I propose the attached one, but am of course open to edits. [It's also in a Google Sheet here.](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LINFteanPk1CUG1Y6TIy3xYFhUEa0wYRweGY_jB4fSo/edit?usp=sharing) Perhaps we could share it with the open call so that candidates understand how we will select our representatives?
>>
>> Regarding the text of the call itself, it looks fine to me, though I suggest fixing the spelling of Farzaneh's name ;-) and mentioning we will choose "up to three representatives."
>>
>> Many thanks for this Rafik,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [council] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
>>> Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:28 PM
>>> UTC Time: 10 January 2018 11:28
>>> From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Ok by me. Can you just clarify the time for Friday 12th deadline? Say Friday 12th at 11pm UTC for example?
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>> *[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))
>>>
>>> 2018-01-10 12:49 GMT+02:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I propose to send this call for volunteers below to the list and open it till Friday. if no objection, I will send it today so we can kick-off the process
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Call for Volunteers: GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO council created a new standing committee on ICANN's budget and operations (SCBO), in order to input in the annual fiscal year budgeting process. It issued a call for volunteers for subject matters experts from the different stakeholder groups and constituencies to join it. The SCBO will start working next week in order to cover the new ICANN FY19 budget public comment.
>>>>
>>>> NCSG will send the names of members who have experience in budget and finance matters and would like to volunteer at the SCBO. Please read carefully the attached document describing the committee work and how to participate
>>>>
>>>> Expression of interest (EOI) should be sent to Farznaeh and me in order for the policy committee to review it. Please describe in EOI your experience regarding budget and finance and/or also your experience in relevant areas.
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for submitting the EOI is this Friday 12th Jan.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is some task we should handle quickly since the SCBO will start working on the budget soon.
>>>>> I think we have already 2 councilors volunteers there and the calls concern subject matter experts. I don't think we have a limit in term of names but I hope that we get enough candidates.
>>>>> quick action will be to issue a call for candidates based on the description attached and set a deadline to receive SOI and review them
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find attached the Call for Volunteers for the GNSO Council?s Standing Committee on ICANN?s Budget and Operations which was sent earlier today to the SG/C Chairs.
>>>>>
>>>>> As mentioned in the document, applicant names should be communicated by SG/C leadership only to the GNSO Secretariat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nathalie
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180111/b3b20fd0/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Jan 12 08:23:36 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:23:36 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:

   - Diversity:
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
   - CCT:
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
   - Jurisdiction:
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
   - Ombudsman:
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit


the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is the
15th Jan.
Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the
penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.

Thanks,

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180112/3f11619a/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Fri Jan 12 08:28:58 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 01:28:58 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds, and CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I think the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could live with the submission of this comment too.

? Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
> Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
> UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>
> - Diversity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
>
> - CCT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
>
> - Jurisdiction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
>
> - Ombudsman: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit
>
> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is the 15th Jan.
> Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180112/510e5bf3/attachment.htm>

From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Fri Jan 12 21:00:44 2018
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>

Dear all,I support the submission of the comments written.?Kind Regards,?
JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?ColombiaCommunications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANNCluster Orinoco TIC memberMaster IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
Cel. +57 3017435600
Twitter:?@JmanuRojas





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

    El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> escribi?:  
 
 Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds, and CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I think the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could live with the submission of this comment too.

? Ayden??



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>

Hi all,

this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
   
   - Diversity:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web   

   - CCT:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit   

   - Jurisdiction:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit   

   - Ombudsman:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit   


the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is the 15th Jan.
Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.

Thanks,

Best,

Rafik


_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180112/f962b8ff/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Sat Jan 13 05:38:00 2018
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:38:00 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
 <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rafik

I went through the comments and resolved them in Jurisdiction and Ombudsman
docs. You can look over them by clicking on "comment" in Google doc.

Best

Farzaneh

Farzaneh

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC <
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I support the submission of the comments written.
> Kind Regards,
>
> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia
> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns
> Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN
> Cluster Orinoco TIC member
> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
>
> Cel. +57 3017435600 <+57%20301%207435600>
> Twitter: @JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <
> icann at ferdeline.com> escribi?:
>
>
> Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds, and
> CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I think
> the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could live
> with the submission of this comment too.
>
> ? Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
> Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
> UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>
>    - Diversity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/
>    1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web>
>    - CCT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-
>    OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit>
>    - Jurisdiction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/
>    1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit>
>    - Ombudsman: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-
>    2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit>
>
>
> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is the
> 15th Jan.
> Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the
> penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180112/226342da/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Jan 13 06:11:27 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:11:27 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
 <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkZgy0Xab4cXtBE79azfnoszo=8hjngqVfcZXkNKSsKOQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

@Farzaneh thanks for the editing and comments resolution.
@Ayden @Juan thanks for the endorsement.
@all please review the documents and share your support as asap.

Best,

Rafik


2018-01-13 12:38 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:

> Hi Rafik
>
> I went through the comments and resolved them in Jurisdiction and
> Ombudsman docs. You can look over them by clicking on "comment" in Google
> doc.
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC <
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> I support the submission of the comments written.
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
>> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia
>> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns
>> Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN
>> Cluster Orinoco TIC member
>> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
>>
>> Cel. +57 3017435600 <+57%20301%207435600>
>> Twitter: @JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <
>> icann at ferdeline.com> escribi?:
>>
>>
>> Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds, and
>> CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I think
>> the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could live
>> with the submission of this comment too.
>>
>> ? Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
>> Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
>> UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>>
>>    - Diversity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5
>>    qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web>
>>    - CCT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAq
>>    nuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
>>    - Jurisdiction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYT
>>    kKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit>
>>    - Ombudsman: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1
>>    DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit
>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit>
>>
>>
>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is the
>> 15th Jan.
>> Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the
>> penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180113/fba259ce/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Sun Jan 14 00:04:51 2018
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:04:51 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkZgy0Xab4cXtBE79azfnoszo=8hjngqVfcZXkNKSsKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
 <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkZgy0Xab4cXtBE79azfnoszo=8hjngqVfcZXkNKSsKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47e88f21-bbac-59cd-1eb1-e18e0f279015@mpicc.de>

I support the submissions. Rafik, I resolved your edits to Ombudsman
comment.

Thank you all.

Cheers,

Tanya


On 13/01/18 05:11, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> @Farzaneh thanks for the editing and comments resolution.
> @Ayden @Juan thanks for the endorsement.
> @all please review the documents and share your support as asap.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2018-01-13 12:38 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi Rafik
>
>     I went through the comments and resolved them in Jurisdiction and
>     Ombudsman docs. You can look over them by clicking on "comment" in
>     Google doc.
>
>     Best
>
>     Farzaneh?
>
>     Farzaneh
>
>     On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC
>     <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>
>         Dear all,
>         I support the submission of the comments written.?
>         Kind Regards,?
>
>         JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
>         Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?Colombia
>         Communications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational
>         Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN
>         Cluster Orinoco TIC member
>         Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
>
>         Cel. +57 3017435600 <tel:+57%20301%207435600>
>         Twitter:?@JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>
>
>
>
>
>
>         ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>
>
>         El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden
>         F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>         escribi?:
>
>
>         Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction,
>         Ombuds, and CCT comments in their present forms. I have
>         previously noted that I think the ASKs for our Diversity
>         comment are a little unclear but I could live with the
>         submission of this comment too.
>
>         ? Ayden??
>
>
>>         -------- Original Message --------
>>         Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
>>         Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
>>         UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
>>         From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>         To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>         <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>>         Hi all,
>>
>>         this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>>
>>           * Diversity:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web>
>>           * CCT:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit>
>>           * Jurisdiction:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit>
>>           * Ombudsman:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit
>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit>
>>
>>
>>         the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT
>>         which is the 15th Jan.
>>         Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also
>>         asking the penholder to finalize the resolution of
>>         comments/edits.
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         Rafik
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180113/dea3a230/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Sun Jan 14 00:06:24 2018
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:06:24 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <47e88f21-bbac-59cd-1eb1-e18e0f279015@mpicc.de>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
 <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkZgy0Xab4cXtBE79azfnoszo=8hjngqVfcZXkNKSsKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <47e88f21-bbac-59cd-1eb1-e18e0f279015@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <86ABF530-5646-47D1-8320-CCFBC2BB9BCF@gmail.com>

Just to leave it on the record off the list. I also support the submissions!

Martin

> On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:04, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
> 
> I support the submissions. Rafik, I resolved your edits to Ombudsman comment.
> 
> Thank you all.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tanya 
> 
> On 13/01/18 05:11, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> @Farzaneh thanks for the editing and comments resolution.
>> @Ayden @Juan thanks for the endorsement.
>> @all please review the documents and share your support as asap.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 
>> 2018-01-13 12:38 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>:
>> Hi Rafik
>> 
>> I went through the comments and resolved them in Jurisdiction and Ombudsman docs. You can look over them by clicking on "comment" in Google doc.
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Farzaneh 
>> 
>> Farzaneh
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I support the submission of the comments written. 
>> Kind Regards, 
>> 
>> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
>> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia
>> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN
>> Cluster Orinoco TIC member
>> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
>> 
>> Cel. +57 3017435600 <tel:+57%20301%207435600>
>> Twitter: @JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                                                
>> 
>> 
>> El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> escribi?:
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds, and CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I think the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could live with the submission of this comment too.
>> 
>> ? Ayden  
>> 
>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
>>> Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
>>> UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>>> Diversity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web>
>>> CCT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit>
>>> Jurisdiction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit>
>>> Ombudsman: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit>
>>> 
>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is the 15th Jan.
>>> Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180113/6cae9a21/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Jan 14 11:38:38 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:38:38 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <86ABF530-5646-47D1-8320-CCFBC2BB9BCF@gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
 <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkZgy0Xab4cXtBE79azfnoszo=8hjngqVfcZXkNKSsKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <47e88f21-bbac-59cd-1eb1-e18e0f279015@mpicc.de>
 <86ABF530-5646-47D1-8320-CCFBC2BB9BCF@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkWrvKfRMRB1UX6ycCoNsvuPiAgw2EftsHAFntEa99AmQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

the deadline for submissions is less than 14 hours away. Till now, we have
support from Ayden, Juan, Tatiana and Martin. No objection was made.
unless we get strong objections, I will submit the comments for CCWG by
their deadlines (14th Jan) and CCT by 15th Jan.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-14 7:06 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>:

> Just to leave it on the record off the list. I also support the
> submissions!
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:04, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
>
> I support the submissions. Rafik, I resolved your edits to Ombudsman
> comment.
>
> Thank you all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 13/01/18 05:11, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> @Farzaneh thanks for the editing and comments resolution.
> @Ayden @Juan thanks for the endorsement.
> @all please review the documents and share your support as asap.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2018-01-13 12:38 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Rafik
>>
>> I went through the comments and resolved them in Jurisdiction and
>> Ombudsman docs. You can look over them by clicking on "comment" in Google
>> doc.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC <
>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I support the submission of the comments written.
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
>>> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia
>>> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns
>>> Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN
>>> Cluster Orinoco TIC member
>>> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
>>>
>>> Cel. +57 3017435600 <+57%20301%207435600>
>>> Twitter: @JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <
>>> icann at ferdeline.com> escribi?:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds, and
>>> CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I think
>>> the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could live
>>> with the submission of this comment too.
>>>
>>> ? Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
>>> Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
>>> UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>>>
>>>    - Diversity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5
>>>    qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web>
>>>    - CCT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAq
>>>    nuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
>>>    - Jurisdiction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYT
>>>    kKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit>
>>>    - Ombudsman: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1
>>>    DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit
>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit>
>>>
>>>
>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is the
>>> 15th Jan.
>>> Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the
>>> penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180114/65de7ba8/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Jan 14 15:47:02 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 08:47:02 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
	Strategic Planning Session
Message-ID: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>

Hi, all-

I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest we submit. [It is on Google Docs here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing) and edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the PC can submit this or if we should escalate it (if we support the proposal) to the NCSG EC to submit instead? Matters of process aside, the general gist of the proposal is as follows:

The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding to more requests for public comment than ever before in its history. To sustain this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee would like to request support to conduct a two-day, face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a session would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to develop an appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year ahead, to negotiate and determine NCSG positions on pressing issues, and, for the first time, to draft a five-year strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities. This is a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting of a traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee does meet during ICANN meetings, given our Officers involvement in other working groups and on the GNSO Council, there is never enough time to think about our more long-term objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work plan for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for the next five years, and is best suited to being held in isolation away from the pressures of our other ICANN commitments. This session would be largely self-organised with minimal staff support required.

The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is 31 January, so I would like to suggest that we add this to the agenda for our upcoming policy call to discuss further. Thanks!

Best,

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180114/799be4af/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Jan 14 17:05:54 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:05:54 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkWrvKfRMRB1UX6ycCoNsvuPiAgw2EftsHAFntEa99AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
 <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkZgy0Xab4cXtBE79azfnoszo=8hjngqVfcZXkNKSsKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <47e88f21-bbac-59cd-1eb1-e18e0f279015@mpicc.de>
 <86ABF530-5646-47D1-8320-CCFBC2BB9BCF@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkWrvKfRMRB1UX6ycCoNsvuPiAgw2EftsHAFntEa99AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5y8NiafW0nqcbysHJk5gr-3g8PdfxwhO6gw4jg1z-HdztTnU2UG_8mdL_b3ffcyUecIfNj7g0ul2m8sVw6asinF6aXIet1bGBJf6rKARnEo=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks for this, Rafik.

Once submitted I hope that we might be able to add these statements to our wiki as well, inserting a permalink to the submitted comment.

I was just on our archive page and saw that some of our recently submitted comments are linking to the Google Doc where we drafted our statement. I think it is a better practice to link to what we ultimately submitted in the respective comment's archived mailing list. Perhaps Maryam could change this? :-) (please!)

Kind regards, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
> Local Time: 14 January 2018 10:38 AM
> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 09:38
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> the deadline for submissions is less than 14 hours away. Till now, we have support from Ayden, Juan, Tatiana and Martin. No objection was made.
> unless we get strong objections, I will submit the comments for CCWG by their deadlines (14th Jan) and CCT by 15th Jan.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-14 7:06 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>
>> Just to leave it on the record off the list. I also support the submissions!
>> Martin
>>
>>> On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:04, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> I support the submissions. Rafik, I resolved your edits to Ombudsman comment.
>>>
>>> Thank you all.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On 13/01/18 05:11, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> @Farzaneh thanks for the editing and comments resolution.
>>>> @Ayden @Juan thanks for the endorsement.
>>>> @all please review the documents and share your support as asap.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2018-01-13 12:38 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> I went through the comments and resolved them in Jurisdiction and Ombudsman docs. You can look over them by clicking on "comment" in Google doc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> I support the submission of the comments written.
>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
>>>>>> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia
>>>>>> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN
>>>>>> Cluster Orinoco TIC member
>>>>>> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cel. [+57 3017435600](tel:+57%20301%207435600)
>>>>>> Twitter: [@JmanuRojas](http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> escribi?:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds, and CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I think the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could live with the submission of this comment too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
>>>>>>> Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
>>>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Diversity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - CCT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Jurisdiction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Ombudsman: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is the 15th Jan.
>>>>>>> Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>
>>>> [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/
>>>>
>>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180114/c869ef4a/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Sun Jan 14 22:09:30 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:09:30 -0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
 Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWpXK5n7KuT8qGjhXu-1BR1mwNgvNc6A+n-krXWFj7vB=w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

I am in full support of this request. I just added one quick suggested
edit-addition which is to include both Chairs as well (NCUC and NPOC).
I understand they are not PC members but maybe their presence can be
of help as we will be discussing a strategic plan.

Thanks,
Arsene

2018-01-14 5:47 UTC?08:00, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
> Hi, all-
>
> I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest we submit. [It
> is on Google Docs
> here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing)
> and edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the PC can
> submit this or if we should escalate it (if we support the proposal) to the
> NCSG EC to submit instead? Matters of process aside, the general gist of the
> proposal is as follows:
>
> The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding to more
> requests for public comment than ever before in its history. To sustain this
> momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee would like to request support to conduct
> a two-day, face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a session would
> allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to develop an appropriate
> and ambitious work plan for the year ahead, to negotiate and determine NCSG
> positions on pressing issues, and, for the first time, to draft a five-year
> strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities. This is a session
> which we would like to hold outside of the setting of a traditional ICANN
> meeting. While the Policy Committee does meet during ICANN meetings, given
> our Officers involvement in other working groups and on the GNSO Council,
> there is never enough time to think about our more long-term objectives.
> This session would allow us to develop a work plan for both the next 12
> months, and at a higher level, for the next five years, and is best suited
> to being held in isolation away from the pressures of our other ICANN
> commitments. This session would be largely self-organised with minimal staff
> support required.
>
> The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is 31 January, so
> I would like to suggest that we add this to the agenda for our upcoming
> policy call to discuss further. Thanks!
>
> Best,
>
> Ayden


-- 
------------------------
**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>)


From farellfolly at gmail.com  Sun Jan 14 22:11:52 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:11:52 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <5y8NiafW0nqcbysHJk5gr-3g8PdfxwhO6gw4jg1z-HdztTnU2UG_8mdL_b3ffcyUecIfNj7g0ul2m8sVw6asinF6aXIet1bGBJf6rKARnEo=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
 <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkZgy0Xab4cXtBE79azfnoszo=8hjngqVfcZXkNKSsKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <47e88f21-bbac-59cd-1eb1-e18e0f279015@mpicc.de>
 <86ABF530-5646-47D1-8320-CCFBC2BB9BCF@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkWrvKfRMRB1UX6ycCoNsvuPiAgw2EftsHAFntEa99AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5y8NiafW0nqcbysHJk5gr-3g8PdfxwhO6gw4jg1z-HdztTnU2UG_8mdL_b3ffcyUecIfNj7g0ul2m8sVw6asinF6aXIet1bGBJf6rKARnEo=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxeeZWXjsN_iWYzqOo3c4RHwnAn5+-GRAnm0q19h9NQ9mw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Rafik,

I resolved all comments in both CCT-RT and diversity reports comments, but
one where I need a clarification (Please check your skype inbox). Both
recommendations are now ready for submission. I thank everyone who helped
on that.

Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 ? 16:06, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
?crit :

> Thanks for this, Rafik.
>
> Once submitted I hope that we might be able to add these statements to our
> wiki as well, inserting a permalink to the submitted comment.
>
> I was just on our archive page and saw that some of our recently submitted
> comments are linking to the Google Doc where we drafted our statement. I
> think it is a better practice to link to what we ultimately submitted in
> the respective comment's archived mailing list. Perhaps Maryam could change
> this? :-) (please!)
>
> Kind regards, Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
> Local Time: 14 January 2018 10:38 AM
> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 09:38
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> the deadline for submissions is less than 14 hours away. Till now, we have
> support from Ayden, Juan, Tatiana and Martin. No objection was made.
> unless we get strong objections, I will submit the comments for CCWG by
> their deadlines (14th Jan) and CCT by 15th Jan.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-14 7:06 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>
>> Just to leave it on the record off the list. I also support the
>> submissions!
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:04, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
>>
>> I support the submissions. Rafik, I resolved your edits to Ombudsman
>> comment.
>>
>> Thank you all.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On 13/01/18 05:11, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> @Farzaneh thanks for the editing and comments resolution.
>> @Ayden @Juan thanks for the endorsement.
>> @all please review the documents and share your support as asap.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-13 12:38 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi Rafik
>>>
>>> I went through the comments and resolved them in Jurisdiction and
>>> Ombudsman docs. You can look over them by clicking on "comment" in Google
>>> doc.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC <
>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>> I support the submission of the comments written.
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>
>>>> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
>>>> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia
>>>> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns
>>>> Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN
>>>> Cluster Orinoco TIC member
>>>> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
>>>>
>>>> Cel. +57 3017435600 <+57%20301%207435600>
>>>> Twitter: @JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <
>>>> icann at ferdeline.com> escribi?:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds, and
>>>> CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I think
>>>> the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could live
>>>> with the submission of this comment too.
>>>>
>>>> ? Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
>>>> Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
>>>> UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>>>>
>>>>    - Diversity:
>>>>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
>>>>    - CCT:
>>>>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
>>>>    - Jurisdiction:
>>>>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
>>>>    - Ombudsman:
>>>>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is
>>>> the 15th Jan.
>>>> Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the
>>>> penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180114/d5f3998e/attachment.htm>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Sun Jan 14 22:18:53 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:18:53 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
 Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Ayden,

This is a very good idea. I am in full support of it and as you said the
staff should be minimal to avoid a high increase in budget.

There are another strategic meetings such as the intercessional where many
members of the PC already participate. Can we just propose to colocate both
and conduct this PC strategic after or before? It will cost only additional
days for accomodation for those who already participate to the
intercessional and travel tickets for the remaining members, instead of a
complete new logistic plan !

Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 ? 14:47, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
?crit :

> Hi, all-
>
> I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest we submit. It
> is on Google Docs here
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing> and
> edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the PC can submit
> this or if we should escalate it (if we support the proposal) to the NCSG
> EC to submit instead? Matters of process aside, the general gist of the
> proposal is as follows:
>
> *The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding to more
> requests for public comment than ever before in its history. To sustain
> this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee would like to request support to
> conduct a two-day, face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a
> session would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to develop an
> appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year ahead, to negotiate and
> determine NCSG positions on pressing issues, and, for the first time, to
> draft a five-year strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities.
> This is a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting of a
> traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee does meet during
> ICANN meetings, given our Officers involvement in other working groups and
> on the GNSO Council, there is never enough time to think about our more
> long-term objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work plan
> for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for the next five
> years, and is best suited to being held in isolation away from the
> pressures of our other ICANN commitments. This session would be largely
> self-organised with minimal staff support required.*
>
> The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is 31 January,
> so I would like to suggest that we add this to the agenda for our upcoming
> policy call to discuss further. Thanks!
>
> Best,
>
> Ayden
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180114/4e4219ca/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Sun Jan 14 22:33:38 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:33:38 -0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxeeZWXjsN_iWYzqOo3c4RHwnAn5+-GRAnm0q19h9NQ9mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmqy7BcjkwjR-Qg2Pw9HRWyO6OQ+odX0b+khFn1=jw3=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <zLi24KXYZt27nvOOAYEotXMMZVRajIAfkxX_8SCs2TRC6744wcMU5NQxvzrkjphun_qUmbb2Te5K7oNlx9RbsHgUuHxSxqevKEUJVHrssws=@ferdeline.com>
 <191159187.2102024.1515783644610@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAN1qJvCVCSGjss_CPWvyxiUpd4GEMb1Ao+3Rs4bwZh1Q7U4B7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkZgy0Xab4cXtBE79azfnoszo=8hjngqVfcZXkNKSsKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <47e88f21-bbac-59cd-1eb1-e18e0f279015@mpicc.de>
 <86ABF530-5646-47D1-8320-CCFBC2BB9BCF@gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThkWrvKfRMRB1UX6ycCoNsvuPiAgw2EftsHAFntEa99AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5y8NiafW0nqcbysHJk5gr-3g8PdfxwhO6gw4jg1z-HdztTnU2UG_8mdL_b3ffcyUecIfNj7g0ul2m8sVw6asinF6aXIet1bGBJf6rKARnEo=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxeeZWXjsN_iWYzqOo3c4RHwnAn5+-GRAnm0q19h9NQ9mw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWqrqMNd+KU4iCN24-UBXJTYwmNTfw2fX7CpaRS7C4EEfg@mail.gmail.com>

Lending my support for these comments as well and my apologies for
coming in late. Thanks to everyone who worked on the,

2018-01-14 12:11 UTC?08:00, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>:
> Dear Rafik,
>
> I resolved all comments in both CCT-RT and diversity reports comments, but
> one where I need a clarification (Please check your skype inbox). Both
> recommendations are now ready for submission. I thank everyone who helped
> on that.
>
> Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 ? 16:06, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
> ?crit :
>
>> Thanks for this, Rafik.
>>
>> Once submitted I hope that we might be able to add these statements to
>> our
>> wiki as well, inserting a permalink to the submitted comment.
>>
>> I was just on our archive page and saw that some of our recently
>> submitted
>> comments are linking to the Google Doc where we drafted our statement. I
>> think it is a better practice to link to what we ultimately submitted in
>> the respective comment's archived mailing list. Perhaps Maryam could
>> change
>> this? :-) (please!)
>>
>> Kind regards, Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
>> Local Time: 14 January 2018 10:38 AM
>> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 09:38
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> the deadline for submissions is less than 14 hours away. Till now, we
>> have
>> support from Ayden, Juan, Tatiana and Martin. No objection was made.
>> unless we get strong objections, I will submit the comments for CCWG by
>> their deadlines (14th Jan) and CCT by 15th Jan.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2018-01-14 7:06 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Just to leave it on the record off the list. I also support the
>>> submissions!
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:04, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I support the submissions. Rafik, I resolved your edits to Ombudsman
>>> comment.
>>>
>>> Thank you all.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On 13/01/18 05:11, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> @Farzaneh thanks for the editing and comments resolution.
>>> @Ayden @Juan thanks for the endorsement.
>>> @all please review the documents and share your support as asap.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2018-01-13 12:38 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi Rafik
>>>>
>>>> I went through the comments and resolved them in Jurisdiction and
>>>> Ombudsman docs. You can look over them by clicking on "comment" in
>>>> Google
>>>> doc.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC <
>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> I support the submission of the comments written.
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
>>>>> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia
>>>>> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns
>>>>> Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN
>>>>> Cluster Orinoco TIC member
>>>>> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes
>>>>>
>>>>> Cel. +57 3017435600 <+57%20301%207435600>
>>>>> Twitter: @JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El viernes, 12 de enero de 2018 1:29:11 a. m. GMT-5, Ayden F?rdeline <
>>>>> icann at ferdeline.com> escribi?:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Rafik. I support the submission of the Jurisdiction, Ombuds,
>>>>> and
>>>>> CCT comments in their present forms. I have previously noted that I
>>>>> think
>>>>> the ASKs for our Diversity comment are a little unclear but I could
>>>>> live
>>>>> with the submission of this comment too.
>>>>>
>>>>> ? Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Review of Public comments draft
>>>>> Local Time: 12 January 2018 7:23 AM
>>>>> UTC Time: 12 January 2018 06:23
>>>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is an urgent reminder to review the draft comments below:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Diversity:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit?usp=drive_web
>>>>>    - CCT:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zvwTtxa4GGMll-OwAAqnuYYahxtff5qrOeMpUYPiuYQ/edit
>>>>>    - Jurisdiction:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fb9lbDiOYTkKZRL9eE5A46sIl1btUtoAEZOCC3r5KVw/edit
>>>>>    - Ombudsman:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrMcu3zsTTyk1DG-2dbBMgzwjjxYxl-aHaYIS-iIGpQ/edit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan, except for CCT which is
>>>>> the 15th Jan.
>>>>> Please review and help for any proof-reading. I am also asking the
>>>>> penholder to finalize the resolution of comments/edits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


-- 
------------------------
**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>)


From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Jan 15 00:43:23 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 17:43:23 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
	Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <UPaqnCWJq4s1VLWBuvjWQIJxkKRTnDRe_ZuJDy2Gu5DDn9C1TPngSaoLkhdWt0dZHtcCDYDjs1p3L4rwmzam3RX9Yq19KA8-NLZDN1uZJcQ=@ferdeline.com>

Hi Farell,

Thanks for reviewing the additional budgetary request so thoroughly. I wanted to take a few moments to expand upon my thinking as to why I believe this should be separate to other events like the Intersessional.

Firstly, it is of course true that we have a few different sessions like this taking place. As you rightly mentioned we have the two-day Intersessional, and we have the new, three-day GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session. This year these two sessions have been blended together, creating a five-day time commitment for participants.

To add on to this our Policy Committee session would make it a seven-day meeting. I don't know about you, but I know from my own experience at ICANN meetings that I become burnt out after five days. If we made this meeting longer it could become less effective.

There is also the question of audience, and there are two prongs here. One, we want to have a strategy session away from prying eyes. To do it at roughly the same time as we have colleagues from the contracted and non-contracted parties (on Council) or with our colleagues from the Commercial Stakeholders Group (Intersessional) could prove disadvantageous. Two, and perhaps more importantly, the audience we invite to the Intersessional and to the Council Strategic Planning Session should necessarily be different.

As we grow and professionalise the NCSG we need to share the burden of work better. In time I imagine the participant balance for these three sessions would be different. When we blend meetings together the organisation allocates less resources to support travel, and we find ourselves, partly out of necessity, having to invite the same voices to each. We might want to rethink this; we do not necessarily need the same participants, but could see this session as an individual team 'retreat' (in a few years time I hope we can add on a separate Campaigns Strategic Planning Session, when we have an Advocacy Committee or something like that). It sustains the momentum of our work. It gives another 'carrot' to our members to become involved in our activities in a more specialised capacity.

I think it is also worth noting that, in the case of the Intersessional, four out of the last five Intersessionals have been held in the United States, because three-quarters of the delegates are from the US. Given our membership is more diverse and many of our members have obstacles obtaining US visas, piggybacking onto a meeting that is typically held Stateside might not work for us.

Finally, for some of us, it is easier to take 2 days off than it is 5 or 7. When we host a meeting independent to others we have total flexibility over the dates and the location (within reason). We could, for instance, host this session over a weekend ? that might make it easier for our volunteers with families, jobs, or other non-ICANN participants to be able to participate ? or in a location where we are confident the majority of the participants will have no obstacles traveling to, be that because of distance or visas.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC Strategic Planning Session
> Local Time: 14 January 2018 9:18 PM
> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 20:18
> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hello Ayden,
>
> This is a very good idea. I am in full support of it and as you said the staff should be minimal to avoid a high increase in budget.
>
> There are another strategic meetings such as the intercessional where many members of the PC already participate. Can we just propose to colocate both and conduct this PC strategic after or before? It will cost only additional days for accomodation for those who already participate to the intercessional and travel tickets for the remaining members, instead of a complete new logistic plan !
>
> Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 ? 14:47, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a ?crit :
>
>> Hi, all-
>>
>> I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest we submit. [It is on Google Docs here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing) and edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the PC can submit this or if we should escalate it (if we support the proposal) to the NCSG EC to submit instead? Matters of process aside, the general gist of the proposal is as follows:
>>
>> The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding to more requests for public comment than ever before in its history. To sustain this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee would like to request support to conduct a two-day, face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a session would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to develop an appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year ahead, to negotiate and determine NCSG positions on pressing issues, and, for the first time, to draft a five-year strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities. This is a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting of a traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee does meet during ICANN meetings, given our Officers involvement in other working groups and on the GNSO Council, there is never enough time to think about our more long-term objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work plan for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for the next five years, and is best suited to being held in isolation away from the pressures of our other ICANN commitments. This session would be largely self-organised with minimal staff support required.
>>
>> The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is 31 January, so I would like to suggest that we add this to the agenda for our upcoming policy call to discuss further. Thanks!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ayden
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180114/dbb14917/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Jan 15 03:39:56 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:39:56 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
 Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <UPaqnCWJq4s1VLWBuvjWQIJxkKRTnDRe_ZuJDy2Gu5DDn9C1TPngSaoLkhdWt0dZHtcCDYDjs1p3L4rwmzam3RX9Yq19KA8-NLZDN1uZJcQ=@ferdeline.com>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <UPaqnCWJq4s1VLWBuvjWQIJxkKRTnDRe_ZuJDy2Gu5DDn9C1TPngSaoLkhdWt0dZHtcCDYDjs1p3L4rwmzam3RX9Yq19KA8-NLZDN1uZJcQ=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmd7hvPRd7ZO1Ra2bt6nNPxLrKgxeEWVtdhm181vVTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Thanks for the proposal.
As I stated before, I am not in favor of this request. I will try to
elaborate more and respond to some arguments. In term of procedure, ABRs is
more in the remit of EC and FC, the proposal would have to go through them.

   - I heard the argument several times about having short meetings may be
   more bearable than long ones. however, it seems not taking into
   consideration that 2 days meetings would include also 2 days traveling (
   regardless a short or long itinerary). I will also highlight that in our
   last community support comment, we were suggesting that we should arrive
   earlier. I guess people also need to recuperate after a travel regardless
   if it is held during a weekend or not. I am not going to talk about the
   time needed prior to such meeting to get a visa even if we skip the USA as
   location. I understand there are personal preferences but I think we need
   to assess in term of fairness and inclusivity.
   - I am concerned about the argument to use travel as an incentive for 2
   reasons. it is giving the impression that involvement in ICANN and NCSG
   equals traveling and so dismissing the real intercessional work that is
   done most of the time. It is also not scalable neither sustainable in long
   term and we had examples of supported travelers who never became active or
   not as expected.
   - there is no real risk of "prying eyes" if the meeting is closed and I
   guess that is the intent. if there is remote participation, we can check
   who access to AC or phone bridge but I guess the recording will be public
   anyway.
   - if it is about PC strategical planning, I am not sure how it can be a
   different set of attendees in particular for the case of councilors. if it
   is for the wider NCSG, I guess that will still include officers since they
   will are supposed to implement such planning and likely attending the other
   meeting.
   - there are a non-negligible logistics and planning for any meeting. I
   participated in intersessional planning and currently in a strategical
   council meeting. It is time-consuming and needs works, it doesn't happen
   just like that. in fact, I am concerned about the current intersessional in
   term of NCSG readiness (not sure of co-chairs already started to prepare
   for their sessions and we are just 2 weeks away). We need to be mindful of
   how to spend our scare time and attention.


Professionalization means using effectively and efficiently existing
resources and not asking for more for sake of doing it. I am more in favor
to think this carefully and create mechanisms to get input about strategy
and planning and not just think everything in term of meetings. I would
support the idea made by Farzaneh to start first with an online meeting to
see how it works and what we can do concretely.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-15 7:43 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi Farell,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the additional budgetary request so thoroughly. I
> wanted to take a few moments to expand upon my thinking as to why I believe
> this should be separate to other events like the Intersessional.
>
> Firstly, it is of course true that we have a few different sessions like
> this taking place. As you rightly mentioned we have the two-day
> Intersessional, and we have the new, three-day GNSO Council Strategic
> Planning Session. This year these two sessions have been blended together,
> creating a five-day time commitment for participants.
>
> To add on to this our Policy Committee session would make it a seven-day
> meeting. I don't know about you, but I know from my own experience at ICANN
> meetings that I become burnt out after five days. If we made this meeting
> longer it could become less effective.
>
> There is also the question of audience, and there are two prongs here.
> One, we want to have a strategy session away from prying eyes. To do it at
> roughly the same time as we have colleagues from the contracted and
> non-contracted parties (on Council) or with our colleagues from the
> Commercial Stakeholders Group (Intersessional) could prove disadvantageous.
> Two, and perhaps more importantly, the audience we invite to the
> Intersessional and to the Council Strategic Planning Session should
> necessarily be different.
>
> As we grow and professionalise the NCSG we need to share the burden of
> work better. In time I imagine the participant balance for these three
> sessions would be different. When we blend meetings together the
> organisation allocates less resources to support travel, and we find
> ourselves, partly out of necessity, having to invite the same voices to
> each. We might want to rethink this; we do not necessarily need the same
> participants, but could see this session as an individual team 'retreat'
> (in a few years time I hope we can add on a separate Campaigns Strategic
> Planning Session, when we have an Advocacy Committee or something like
> that). It sustains the momentum of our work. It gives another 'carrot' to
> our members to become involved in our activities in a more specialised
> capacity.
>
> I think it is also worth noting that, in the case of the Intersessional,
> four out of the last five Intersessionals have been held in the United
> States, because three-quarters of the delegates are from the US. Given our
> membership is more diverse and many of our members have obstacles obtaining
> US visas, piggybacking onto a meeting that is typically held Stateside
> might not work for us.
>
> Finally, for some of us, it is easier to take 2 days off than it is 5 or
> 7. When we host a meeting independent to others we have total flexibility
> over the dates and the location (within reason). We could, for instance,
> host this session over a weekend ? that might make it easier for our
> volunteers with families, jobs, or other non-ICANN participants to be able
> to participate ? or in a location where we are confident the majority of
> the participants will have no obstacles traveling to, be that because of
> distance or visas.
>
> Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
> Strategic Planning Session
> Local Time: 14 January 2018 9:18 PM
> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 20:18
> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hello Ayden,
>
> This is a very good idea. I am in full support of it and as you said the
> staff should be minimal to avoid a high increase in budget.
>
> There are another strategic meetings such as the intercessional where many
> members of the PC already participate. Can we just propose to colocate both
> and conduct this PC strategic after or before? It will cost only additional
> days for accomodation for those who already participate to the
> intercessional and travel tickets for the remaining members, instead of a
> complete new logistic plan !
>
> Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 ? 14:47, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
> ?crit :
>
>> Hi, all-
>>
>> I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest we submit. It
>> is on Google Docs here
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing> and
>> edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the PC can submit
>> this or if we should escalate it (if we support the proposal) to the NCSG
>> EC to submit instead? Matters of process aside, the general gist of the
>> proposal is as follows:
>>
>> *The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding to more
>> requests for public comment than ever before in its history. To sustain
>> this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee would like to request support to
>> conduct a two-day, face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a
>> session would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to develop an
>> appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year ahead, to negotiate and
>> determine NCSG positions on pressing issues, and, for the first time, to
>> draft a five-year strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities.
>> This is a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting of a
>> traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee does meet during
>> ICANN meetings, given our Officers involvement in other working groups and
>> on the GNSO Council, there is never enough time to think about our more
>> long-term objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work plan
>> for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for the next five
>> years, and is best suited to being held in isolation away from the
>> pressures of our other ICANN commitments. This session would be largely
>> self-organised with minimal staff support required.*
>>
>> The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is 31 January,
>> so I would like to suggest that we add this to the agenda for our upcoming
>> policy call to discuss further. Thanks!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ayden
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180115/05752e9e/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Jan 15 04:44:26 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:44:26 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
	Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmd7hvPRd7ZO1Ra2bt6nNPxLrKgxeEWVtdhm181vVTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <UPaqnCWJq4s1VLWBuvjWQIJxkKRTnDRe_ZuJDy2Gu5DDn9C1TPngSaoLkhdWt0dZHtcCDYDjs1p3L4rwmzam3RX9Yq19KA8-NLZDN1uZJcQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmd7hvPRd7ZO1Ra2bt6nNPxLrKgxeEWVtdhm181vVTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <VRbJd17-0AHSyUFAZtj_GyYop46MdcGo_uZbr9x83uoqahrHeQZtcoWoaZ-SvjwPL_1xQtcZiTCACJ2JBj21szlTO1Zyj_R0i2vKKlWx5Uw=@ferdeline.com>

I am happy to address these concerns on our upcoming PC call; but in short, I disagree and do not think an online webinar can realistically substitute for a two-day, face-to-face strategic planning session. No one is going to log in to Adobe Connect for 16 hours; but when we are on a conference room, we are able to get everyone?s uninterrupted attention. Concerns around preparedness are legitimate but can be addressed by setting clear benchmarks to be met in the months leading up to the session and which must be adhered to before Staff authorise the booking of travel. In terms of participants, while at this point in time there may be overlap, that itself is never sustainable nor necessarily desirable. Volunteer burnout is real and the solution here is to have different sets of Officers involved in different functions working towards a common goal (and we need a way to retain these Officers ? and let?s be realistic about what tools we can request from ICANN to make this happen), not to overburden those who are working already with more tasks.

Ayden

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:39, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the proposal.
> As I stated before, I am not in favor of this request. I will try to elaborate more and respond to some arguments. In term of procedure, ABRs is more in the remit of EC and FC, the proposal would have to go through them.
>
> - I heard the argument several times about having short meetings may be more bearable than long ones. however, it seems not taking into consideration that 2 days meetings would include also 2 days traveling ( regardless a short or long itinerary). I will also highlight that in our last community support comment, we were suggesting that we should arrive earlier. I guess people also need to recuperate after a travel regardless if it is held during a weekend or not. I am not going to talk about the time needed prior to such meeting to get a visa even if we skip the USA as location. I understand there are personal preferences but I think we need to assess in term of fairness and inclusivity.
> - I am concerned about the argument to use travel as an incentive for 2 reasons. it is giving the impression that involvement in ICANN and NCSG equals traveling and so dismissing the real intercessional work that is done most of the time. It is also not scalable neither sustainable in long term and we had examples of supported travelers who never became active or not as expected.
> - there is no real risk of "prying eyes" if the meeting is closed and I guess that is the intent. if there is remote participation, we can check who access to AC or phone bridge but I guess the recording will be public anyway.
> - if it is about PC strategical planning, I am not sure how it can be a different set of attendees in particular for the case of councilors. if it is for the wider NCSG, I guess that will still include officers since they will are supposed to implement such planning and likely attending the other meeting.
> - there are a non-negligible logistics and planning for any meeting. I participated in intersessional planning and currently in a strategical council meeting. It is time-consuming and needs works, it doesn't happen just like that. in fact, I am concerned about the current intersessional in term of NCSG readiness (not sure of co-chairs already started to prepare for their sessions and we are just 2 weeks away). We need to be mindful of how to spend our scare time and attention.
>
> Professionalization means using effectively and efficiently existing resources and not asking for more for sake of doing it. I am more in favor to think this carefully and create mechanisms to get input about strategy and planning and not just think everything in term of meetings. I would support the idea made by Farzaneh to start first with an online meeting to see how it works and what we can do concretely.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-15 7:43 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi Farell,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the additional budgetary request so thoroughly. I wanted to take a few moments to expand upon my thinking as to why I believe this should be separate to other events like the Intersessional.
>>
>> Firstly, it is of course true that we have a few different sessions like this taking place. As you rightly mentioned we have the two-day Intersessional, and we have the new, three-day GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session. This year these two sessions have been blended together, creating a five-day time commitment for participants.
>>
>> To add on to this our Policy Committee session would make it a seven-day meeting. I don't know about you, but I know from my own experience at ICANN meetings that I become burnt out after five days. If we made this meeting longer it could become less effective.
>>
>> There is also the question of audience, and there are two prongs here. One, we want to have a strategy session away from prying eyes. To do it at roughly the same time as we have colleagues from the contracted and non-contracted parties (on Council) or with our colleagues from the Commercial Stakeholders Group (Intersessional) could prove disadvantageous. Two, and perhaps more importantly, the audience we invite to the Intersessional and to the Council Strategic Planning Session should necessarily be different.
>>
>> As we grow and professionalise the NCSG we need to share the burden of work better. In time I imagine the participant balance for these three sessions would be different. When we blend meetings together the organisation allocates less resources to support travel, and we find ourselves, partly out of necessity, having to invite the same voices to each. We might want to rethink this; we do not necessarily need the same participants, but could see this session as an individual team 'retreat' (in a few years time I hope we can add on a separate Campaigns Strategic Planning Session, when we have an Advocacy Committee or something like that). It sustains the momentum of our work. It gives another 'carrot' to our members to become involved in our activities in a more specialised capacity.
>>
>> I think it is also worth noting that, in the case of the Intersessional, four out of the last five Intersessionals have been held in the United States, because three-quarters of the delegates are from the US. Given our membership is more diverse and many of our members have obstacles obtaining US visas, piggybacking onto a meeting that is typically held Stateside might not work for us.
>>
>> Finally, for some of us, it is easier to take 2 days off than it is 5 or 7. When we host a meeting independent to others we have total flexibility over the dates and the location (within reason). We could, for instance, host this session over a weekend ? that might make it easier for our volunteers with families, jobs, or other non-ICANN participants to be able to participate ? or in a location where we are confident the majority of the participants will have no obstacles traveling to, be that because of distance or visas.
>>
>> Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC Strategic Planning Session
>>> Local Time: 14 January 2018 9:18 PM
>>> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 20:18
>>> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> Hello Ayden,
>>>
>>> This is a very good idea. I am in full support of it and as you said the staff should be minimal to avoid a high increase in budget.
>>>
>>> There are another strategic meetings such as the intercessional where many members of the PC already participate. Can we just propose to colocate both and conduct this PC strategic after or before? It will cost only additional days for accomodation for those who already participate to the intercessional and travel tickets for the remaining members, instead of a complete new logistic plan !
>>>
>>> Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 ? 14:47, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a ?crit :
>>>
>>>> Hi, all-
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest we submit. [It is on Google Docs here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing) and edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the PC can submit this or if we should escalate it (if we support the proposal) to the NCSG EC to submit instead? Matters of process aside, the general gist of the proposal is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding to more requests for public comment than ever before in its history. To sustain this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee would like to request support to conduct a two-day, face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a session would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to develop an appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year ahead, to negotiate and determine NCSG positions on pressing issues, and, for the first time, to draft a five-year strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities. This is a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting of a traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee does meet during ICANN meetings, given our Officers involvement in other working groups and on the GNSO Council, there is never enough time to think about our more long-term objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work plan for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for the next five years, and is best suited to being held in isolation away from the pressures of our other ICANN commitments. This session would be largely self-organised with minimal staff support required.
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is 31 January, so I would like to suggest that we add this to the agenda for our upcoming policy call to discuss further. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> ______________________________ _________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180114/2ae0affa/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Mon Jan 15 12:52:16 2018
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:52:16 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
 Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmd7hvPRd7ZO1Ra2bt6nNPxLrKgxeEWVtdhm181vVTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <UPaqnCWJq4s1VLWBuvjWQIJxkKRTnDRe_ZuJDy2Gu5DDn9C1TPngSaoLkhdWt0dZHtcCDYDjs1p3L4rwmzam3RX9Yq19KA8-NLZDN1uZJcQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmd7hvPRd7ZO1Ra2bt6nNPxLrKgxeEWVtdhm181vVTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68ebc2e7-a416-37f8-7c6c-86df05f3403d@mpicc.de>

Hi all,

Ayden, thanks for the proposal. However, I can support each and every of
Rafik's arguments. Especially about using travel as incentive and
anything about what kind of time and efforts and logistics two-days
travel entails. I am for trying on-line meeting and if it doesn't work
and there is a real need for F2F (which I am not convinced of) --
contemplating it. However, with all this, I don't think it's a PC
decision. It's EC's remit, so this should be discussed there.

Cheers,

Tanya


On 15/01/18 02:39, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the proposal.?
> As I stated before, I am not in favor of this request. I will try to
> elaborate more and respond to some arguments. In term of procedure,
> ABRs is more in the remit of EC and FC, the proposal would have to go
> through them.?
>
>   * I heard the argument several times about having short meetings may
>     be more bearable than long ones. however, it seems not taking into
>     consideration that 2 days meetings would include also 2 days
>     traveling?( regardless a short or long itinerary).?I will also
>     highlight that in our last community support comment, we were
>     suggesting that we should arrive earlier. I guess people also need
>     to recuperate after a travel regardless if it is held during a
>     weekend or not. I am not going to talk about the time needed prior
>     to such meeting to get a visa even if we skip the USA as location.
>     I understand there are personal preferences but I think we need to
>     assess in term of fairness and inclusivity.?
>   * I am concerned about the argument to use travel as an
>     incentive?for 2 reasons. it is giving the impression that
>     involvement in?ICANN and NCSG equals traveling and so dismissing
>     the real intercessional work that is done most of the time. It is
>     also not scalable neither sustainable in long term and we had
>     examples of supported travelers who never became active or not as
>     expected.
>   * there is no real risk of "prying eyes" if the meeting is closed
>     and I guess that is the intent. if there is remote participation,
>     we can check who access to AC or phone bridge but I guess the
>     recording will be public anyway.
>   * if it is about PC strategical planning, I am not sure how it can
>     be a different set of attendees in particular for the case of
>     councilors. if it is for the wider NCSG, I guess that will still
>     include officers since they will are supposed to implement such
>     planning and likely attending the other meeting.?
>   * there are a non-negligible logistics and planning for any meeting.
>     I participated in intersessional?planning and currently in a
>     strategical council meeting. It is time-consuming and needs works,
>     it doesn't happen just like that. in fact, I am concerned about
>     the current intersessional in term of NCSG readiness (not sure of
>     co-chairs already started to prepare for their sessions and we are
>     just 2 weeks away). We need to be mindful of how to spend our
>     scare time and attention.
>
>
> Professionalization means using effectively and efficiently existing
> resources and not asking for more for sake of doing it. I am more in
> favor to think this carefully and create mechanisms?to get input about
> strategy and planning and not just think everything in term of
> meetings. I would support the idea made by Farzaneh to start first
> with an online meeting to see how it works and what we can do concretely.?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-15 7:43 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
>     Hi Farell,
>
>     Thanks for reviewing the additional budgetary request so
>     thoroughly. I wanted to take a few moments to expand upon my
>     thinking as to why I believe this should be separate to other
>     events like the Intersessional.
>
>     Firstly, it is of course true that we have a few different
>     sessions like this taking place. As you rightly mentioned we have
>     the two-day Intersessional, and we have the new, three-day GNSO
>     Council Strategic Planning Session. This year these two sessions
>     have been blended together, creating a five-day time commitment
>     for participants.?
>
>     To add on to this our Policy Committee session would make it a
>     seven-day meeting. I don't know about you, but I know from my own
>     experience at ICANN meetings that I become burnt out after five
>     days. If we made this meeting longer it could become less effective.
>
>     There is also the question of audience, and there are two prongs
>     here. One, we want to have a strategy session away from prying
>     eyes. To do it at roughly the same time as we have colleagues from
>     the contracted and non-contracted parties (on Council) or with our
>     colleagues from the Commercial Stakeholders Group (Intersessional)
>     could prove disadvantageous. Two, and perhaps more importantly,
>     the audience we invite to the Intersessional and to the Council
>     Strategic Planning Session should necessarily be different.
>
>     As we grow and professionalise the NCSG we need to share the
>     burden of work better. In time I imagine the participant balance
>     for these three sessions would be different. When we blend
>     meetings together the organisation allocates less resources to
>     support travel, and we find ourselves, partly out of necessity,
>     having to invite the same voices to each. We might want to rethink
>     this; we do not necessarily need the same participants, but could
>     see this session as an individual team 'retreat' (in a few years
>     time I hope we can add on a separate Campaigns Strategic Planning
>     Session, when we have an Advocacy Committee or something like
>     that). It sustains the momentum of our work. It gives another
>     'carrot' to our members to become involved in our activities in a
>     more specialised capacity.
>
>     I think it is also worth noting that, in the case of the
>     Intersessional, four out of the last five Intersessionals have
>     been held in the United States, because three-quarters of the
>     delegates are from the US. Given our membership is more diverse
>     and many of our members have obstacles obtaining US visas,
>     piggybacking onto a meeting that is typically held Stateside might
>     not work for us.
>
>     Finally, for some of us, it is easier to take 2 days off than it
>     is 5 or 7. When we host a meeting independent to others we have
>     total flexibility over the dates and the location (within reason).
>     We could, for instance, host this session over a weekend ? that
>     might make it easier for our volunteers with families, jobs, or
>     other non-ICANN participants to be able to participate ? or in a
>     location where we are confident the majority of the participants
>     will have no obstacles traveling to, be that because of distance
>     or visas.
>
>     Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
>
>     Ayden
>
>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request
>>     - NCSG PC Strategic Planning Session
>>     Local Time: 14 January 2018 9:18 PM
>>     UTC Time: 14 January 2018 20:18
>>     From: farellfolly at gmail.com <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>
>>     To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>     ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>>     Hello Ayden,
>>
>>     This is a very good idea. I am in full support of it and as you
>>     said the staff should be minimal to avoid a high increase in budget.?
>>
>>     There are another strategic meetings such as the intercessional
>>     where many members of the PC already participate. Can we just
>>     propose to colocate both and conduct this PC strategic after or
>>     before? It will cost only additional days for accomodation for
>>     those who already participate to the intercessional and travel
>>     tickets for the remaining members, instead of a complete new
>>     logistic plan !
>>
>>     Le?dim. 14 janv. 2018 ??14:47, Ayden F?rdeline
>>     <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> a ?crit?:
>>
>>         Hi, all-
>>
>>         I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest
>>         we submit. It is on Google Docs here
>>         <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing>?and
>>         edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the
>>         PC can submit this or if we should escalate it (if we support
>>         the proposal) to the NCSG EC to submit instead? Matters of
>>         process aside, the general gist of the proposal is as follows:
>>
>>         /The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding
>>         to more requests for public comment than ever before in its
>>         history. To sustain this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee
>>         would like to request support to conduct a two-day,
>>         face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a session
>>         would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to
>>         develop an appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year
>>         ahead, to negotiate and determine NCSG positions on pressing
>>         issues, and, for the first time, to draft a five-year
>>         strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities. This is
>>         a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting
>>         of a traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee
>>         does meet during ICANN meetings, given our Officers
>>         involvement in other working groups and on the GNSO Council,
>>         there is never enough time to think about our more long-term
>>         objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work
>>         plan for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for
>>         the next five years, and is best suited to being held in
>>         isolation away from the pressures of our other ICANN
>>         commitments. This session would be largely self-organised
>>         with minimal staff support required./
>>
>>         The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is
>>         31 January, so I would like to suggest that we add this to
>>         the agenda for our upcoming policy call to discuss further.
>>         Thanks!
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         Ayden
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Regards
>>     @__f_f__
>>     https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>     <https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf> ?
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180115/51d08c90/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Mon Jan 15 12:56:41 2018
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:56:41 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
 Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <68ebc2e7-a416-37f8-7c6c-86df05f3403d@mpicc.de>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <UPaqnCWJq4s1VLWBuvjWQIJxkKRTnDRe_ZuJDy2Gu5DDn9C1TPngSaoLkhdWt0dZHtcCDYDjs1p3L4rwmzam3RX9Yq19KA8-NLZDN1uZJcQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmd7hvPRd7ZO1Ra2bt6nNPxLrKgxeEWVtdhm181vVTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <68ebc2e7-a416-37f8-7c6c-86df05f3403d@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tBc5PFD94czGzH7X+UQmu=1SVf0ThhZf-vDPAG+0m+uA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Tatiana,

I totally agree with your analysis and Rafik's suggestion.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 15 January 2018 at 10:52, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Ayden, thanks for the proposal. However, I can support each and every of
> Rafik's arguments. Especially about using travel as incentive and anything
> about what kind of time and efforts and logistics two-days travel entails.
> I am for trying on-line meeting and if it doesn't work and there is a real
> need for F2F (which I am not convinced of) -- contemplating it. However,
> with all this, I don't think it's a PC decision. It's EC's remit, so this
> should be discussed there.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 15/01/18 02:39, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the proposal.
> As I stated before, I am not in favor of this request. I will try to
> elaborate more and respond to some arguments. In term of procedure, ABRs is
> more in the remit of EC and FC, the proposal would have to go through them.
>
>    - I heard the argument several times about having short meetings may
>    be more bearable than long ones. however, it seems not taking into
>    consideration that 2 days meetings would include also 2 days traveling (
>    regardless a short or long itinerary). I will also highlight that in our
>    last community support comment, we were suggesting that we should arrive
>    earlier. I guess people also need to recuperate after a travel regardless
>    if it is held during a weekend or not. I am not going to talk about the
>    time needed prior to such meeting to get a visa even if we skip the USA as
>    location. I understand there are personal preferences but I think we need
>    to assess in term of fairness and inclusivity.
>    - I am concerned about the argument to use travel as an incentive for
>    2 reasons. it is giving the impression that involvement in ICANN and NCSG
>    equals traveling and so dismissing the real intercessional work that is
>    done most of the time. It is also not scalable neither sustainable in long
>    term and we had examples of supported travelers who never became active or
>    not as expected.
>    - there is no real risk of "prying eyes" if the meeting is closed and
>    I guess that is the intent. if there is remote participation, we can check
>    who access to AC or phone bridge but I guess the recording will be public
>    anyway.
>    - if it is about PC strategical planning, I am not sure how it can be
>    a different set of attendees in particular for the case of councilors. if
>    it is for the wider NCSG, I guess that will still include officers since
>    they will are supposed to implement such planning and likely attending the
>    other meeting.
>    - there are a non-negligible logistics and planning for any meeting. I
>    participated in intersessional planning and currently in a strategical
>    council meeting. It is time-consuming and needs works, it doesn't happen
>    just like that. in fact, I am concerned about the current intersessional in
>    term of NCSG readiness (not sure of co-chairs already started to prepare
>    for their sessions and we are just 2 weeks away). We need to be mindful of
>    how to spend our scare time and attention.
>
>
> Professionalization means using effectively and efficiently existing
> resources and not asking for more for sake of doing it. I am more in favor
> to think this carefully and create mechanisms to get input about strategy
> and planning and not just think everything in term of meetings. I would
> support the idea made by Farzaneh to start first with an online meeting to
> see how it works and what we can do concretely.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-15 7:43 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi Farell,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the additional budgetary request so thoroughly. I
>> wanted to take a few moments to expand upon my thinking as to why I believe
>> this should be separate to other events like the Intersessional.
>>
>> Firstly, it is of course true that we have a few different sessions like
>> this taking place. As you rightly mentioned we have the two-day
>> Intersessional, and we have the new, three-day GNSO Council Strategic
>> Planning Session. This year these two sessions have been blended together,
>> creating a five-day time commitment for participants.
>>
>> To add on to this our Policy Committee session would make it a seven-day
>> meeting. I don't know about you, but I know from my own experience at ICANN
>> meetings that I become burnt out after five days. If we made this meeting
>> longer it could become less effective.
>>
>> There is also the question of audience, and there are two prongs here.
>> One, we want to have a strategy session away from prying eyes. To do it at
>> roughly the same time as we have colleagues from the contracted and
>> non-contracted parties (on Council) or with our colleagues from the
>> Commercial Stakeholders Group (Intersessional) could prove disadvantageous.
>> Two, and perhaps more importantly, the audience we invite to the
>> Intersessional and to the Council Strategic Planning Session should
>> necessarily be different.
>>
>> As we grow and professionalise the NCSG we need to share the burden of
>> work better. In time I imagine the participant balance for these three
>> sessions would be different. When we blend meetings together the
>> organisation allocates less resources to support travel, and we find
>> ourselves, partly out of necessity, having to invite the same voices to
>> each. We might want to rethink this; we do not necessarily need the same
>> participants, but could see this session as an individual team 'retreat'
>> (in a few years time I hope we can add on a separate Campaigns Strategic
>> Planning Session, when we have an Advocacy Committee or something like
>> that). It sustains the momentum of our work. It gives another 'carrot' to
>> our members to become involved in our activities in a more specialised
>> capacity.
>>
>> I think it is also worth noting that, in the case of the Intersessional,
>> four out of the last five Intersessionals have been held in the United
>> States, because three-quarters of the delegates are from the US. Given our
>> membership is more diverse and many of our members have obstacles obtaining
>> US visas, piggybacking onto a meeting that is typically held Stateside
>> might not work for us.
>>
>> Finally, for some of us, it is easier to take 2 days off than it is 5 or
>> 7. When we host a meeting independent to others we have total flexibility
>> over the dates and the location (within reason). We could, for instance,
>> host this session over a weekend ? that might make it easier for our
>> volunteers with families, jobs, or other non-ICANN participants to be able
>> to participate ? or in a location where we are confident the majority of
>> the participants will have no obstacles traveling to, be that because of
>> distance or visas.
>>
>> Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG
>> PC Strategic Planning Session
>> Local Time: 14 January 2018 9:18 PM
>> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 20:18
>> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hello Ayden,
>>
>> This is a very good idea. I am in full support of it and as you said the
>> staff should be minimal to avoid a high increase in budget.
>>
>> There are another strategic meetings such as the intercessional where
>> many members of the PC already participate. Can we just propose to colocate
>> both and conduct this PC strategic after or before? It will cost only
>> additional days for accomodation for those who already participate to the
>> intercessional and travel tickets for the remaining members, instead of a
>> complete new logistic plan !
>>
>> Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 ? 14:47, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
>> ?crit :
>>
>>> Hi, all-
>>>
>>> I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest we submit. It
>>> is on Google Docs here
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing> and
>>> edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the PC can submit
>>> this or if we should escalate it (if we support the proposal) to the NCSG
>>> EC to submit instead? Matters of process aside, the general gist of the
>>> proposal is as follows:
>>>
>>> *The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding to more
>>> requests for public comment than ever before in its history. To sustain
>>> this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee would like to request support to
>>> conduct a two-day, face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a
>>> session would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to develop an
>>> appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year ahead, to negotiate and
>>> determine NCSG positions on pressing issues, and, for the first time, to
>>> draft a five-year strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities.
>>> This is a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting of a
>>> traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee does meet during
>>> ICANN meetings, given our Officers involvement in other working groups and
>>> on the GNSO Council, there is never enough time to think about our more
>>> long-term objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work plan
>>> for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for the next five
>>> years, and is best suited to being held in isolation away from the
>>> pressures of our other ICANN commitments. This session would be largely
>>> self-organised with minimal staff support required.*
>>>
>>> The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is 31 January,
>>> so I would like to suggest that we add this to the agenda for our upcoming
>>> policy call to discuss further. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


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







*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/
<http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180115/ddad6753/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Jan 15 13:08:01 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 06:08:01 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
	Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tBc5PFD94czGzH7X+UQmu=1SVf0ThhZf-vDPAG+0m+uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <UPaqnCWJq4s1VLWBuvjWQIJxkKRTnDRe_ZuJDy2Gu5DDn9C1TPngSaoLkhdWt0dZHtcCDYDjs1p3L4rwmzam3RX9Yq19KA8-NLZDN1uZJcQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmd7hvPRd7ZO1Ra2bt6nNPxLrKgxeEWVtdhm181vVTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <68ebc2e7-a416-37f8-7c6c-86df05f3403d@mpicc.de>
 <CAEux40tBc5PFD94czGzH7X+UQmu=1SVf0ThhZf-vDPAG+0m+uA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <RcHad29IqxxwPs9FiE0_xOTag4Nvn5c3heTT1rp-_89PedaJOBFCbzHc0wpFeSfYhad4EHKCGFr_cc9FoHBpRJ8CdBiFjSnQnczE4TAT3ik=@ferdeline.com>

Hi,

Okay, we can end the discussion here then. I withdraw the proposal based on the lack of support from the PC, and will not put this forward to the EC for their consideration.

I think it would be safe to conclude that the lack of support for a face-to-face meeting would translate into even less support for a 16-hour Adobe Connect session spread across two days, so I am not going to set that into motion at this time.

Kind regards, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC Strategic Planning Session
> Local Time: 15 January 2018 11:56 AM
> UTC Time: 15 January 2018 10:56
> From: pileleji at ymca.gm
> To: Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hello Tatiana,
> I totally agree with your analysis and Rafik's suggestion.
>
> Kind Regards
> Poncelet
>
> On 15 January 2018 at 10:52, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Ayden, thanks for the proposal. However, I can support each and every of Rafik's arguments. Especially about using travel as incentive and anything about what kind of time and efforts and logistics two-days travel entails. I am for trying on-line meeting and if it doesn't work and there is a real need for F2F (which I am not convinced of) -- contemplating it. However, with all this, I don't think it's a PC decision. It's EC's remit, so this should be discussed there.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On 15/01/18 02:39, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the proposal.
>>> As I stated before, I am not in favor of this request. I will try to elaborate more and respond to some arguments. In term of procedure, ABRs is more in the remit of EC and FC, the proposal would have to go through them.
>>>
>>> - I heard the argument several times about having short meetings may be more bearable than long ones. however, it seems not taking into consideration that 2 days meetings would include also 2 days traveling ( regardless a short or long itinerary). I will also highlight that in our last community support comment, we were suggesting that we should arrive earlier. I guess people also need to recuperate after a travel regardless if it is held during a weekend or not. I am not going to talk about the time needed prior to such meeting to get a visa even if we skip the USA as location. I understand there are personal preferences but I think we need to assess in term of fairness and inclusivity.
>>> - I am concerned about the argument to use travel as an incentive for 2 reasons. it is giving the impression that involvement in ICANN and NCSG equals traveling and so dismissing the real intercessional work that is done most of the time. It is also not scalable neither sustainable in long term and we had examples of supported travelers who never became active or not as expected.
>>> - there is no real risk of "prying eyes" if the meeting is closed and I guess that is the intent. if there is remote participation, we can check who access to AC or phone bridge but I guess the recording will be public anyway.
>>> - if it is about PC strategical planning, I am not sure how it can be a different set of attendees in particular for the case of councilors. if it is for the wider NCSG, I guess that will still include officers since they will are supposed to implement such planning and likely attending the other meeting.
>>> - there are a non-negligible logistics and planning for any meeting. I participated in intersessional planning and currently in a strategical council meeting. It is time-consuming and needs works, it doesn't happen just like that. in fact, I am concerned about the current intersessional in term of NCSG readiness (not sure of co-chairs already started to prepare for their sessions and we are just 2 weeks away). We need to be mindful of how to spend our scare time and attention.
>>>
>>> Professionalization means using effectively and efficiently existing resources and not asking for more for sake of doing it. I am more in favor to think this carefully and create mechanisms to get input about strategy and planning and not just think everything in term of meetings. I would support the idea made by Farzaneh to start first with an online meeting to see how it works and what we can do concretely.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2018-01-15 7:43 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Farell,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reviewing the additional budgetary request so thoroughly. I wanted to take a few moments to expand upon my thinking as to why I believe this should be separate to other events like the Intersessional.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, it is of course true that we have a few different sessions like this taking place. As you rightly mentioned we have the two-day Intersessional, and we have the new, three-day GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session. This year these two sessions have been blended together, creating a five-day time commitment for participants.
>>>>
>>>> To add on to this our Policy Committee session would make it a seven-day meeting. I don't know about you, but I know from my own experience at ICANN meetings that I become burnt out after five days. If we made this meeting longer it could become less effective.
>>>>
>>>> There is also the question of audience, and there are two prongs here. One, we want to have a strategy session away from prying eyes. To do it at roughly the same time as we have colleagues from the contracted and non-contracted parties (on Council) or with our colleagues from the Commercial Stakeholders Group (Intersessional) could prove disadvantageous. Two, and perhaps more importantly, the audience we invite to the Intersessional and to the Council Strategic Planning Session should necessarily be different.
>>>>
>>>> As we grow and professionalise the NCSG we need to share the burden of work better. In time I imagine the participant balance for these three sessions would be different. When we blend meetings together the organisation allocates less resources to support travel, and we find ourselves, partly out of necessity, having to invite the same voices to each. We might want to rethink this; we do not necessarily need the same participants, but could see this session as an individual team 'retreat' (in a few years time I hope we can add on a separate Campaigns Strategic Planning Session, when we have an Advocacy Committee or something like that). It sustains the momentum of our work. It gives another 'carrot' to our members to become involved in our activities in a more specialised capacity.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is also worth noting that, in the case of the Intersessional, four out of the last five Intersessionals have been held in the United States, because three-quarters of the delegates are from the US. Given our membership is more diverse and many of our members have obstacles obtaining US visas, piggybacking onto a meeting that is typically held Stateside might not work for us.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, for some of us, it is easier to take 2 days off than it is 5 or 7. When we host a meeting independent to others we have total flexibility over the dates and the location (within reason). We could, for instance, host this session over a weekend ? that might make it easier for our volunteers with families, jobs, or other non-ICANN participants to be able to participate ? or in a location where we are confident the majority of the participants will have no obstacles traveling to, be that because of distance or visas.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC Strategic Planning Session
>>>>> Local Time: 14 January 2018 9:18 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 20:18
>>>>> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Ayden,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very good idea. I am in full support of it and as you said the staff should be minimal to avoid a high increase in budget.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are another strategic meetings such as the intercessional where many members of the PC already participate. Can we just propose to colocate both and conduct this PC strategic after or before? It will cost only additional days for accomodation for those who already participate to the intercessional and travel tickets for the remaining members, instead of a complete new logistic plan !
>>>>>
>>>>> Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 ? 14:47, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a ?crit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, all-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest we submit. [It is on Google Docs here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing) and edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the PC can submit this or if we should escalate it (if we support the proposal) to the NCSG EC to submit instead? Matters of process aside, the general gist of the proposal is as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding to more requests for public comment than ever before in its history. To sustain this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee would like to request support to conduct a two-day, face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a session would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to develop an appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year ahead, to negotiate and determine NCSG positions on pressing issues, and, for the first time, to draft a five-year strategic plan for the Policy Committee?s activities. This is a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting of a traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee does meet during ICANN meetings, given our Officers involvement in other working groups and on the GNSO Council, there is never enough time to think about our more long-term objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work plan for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for the next five years, and is best suited to being held in isolation away from the pressures of our other ICANN commitments. This session would be largely self-organised with minimal staff support required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is 31 January, so I would like to suggest that we add this to the agenda for our upcoming policy call to discuss further. Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180115/9141c5a6/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Jan 15 17:32:01 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:32:01 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation
 for Poll from 9 January Meeting
In-Reply-To: <B57B3AC26997C843A7227CBB3517A76D59048414@COIMBRA.europol.eu.int>
References: <B57B3AC26997C843A7227CBB3517A76D59048414@COIMBRA.europol.eu.int>
Message-ID: <11827c83-1687-4d04-cc76-4c832c50afb2@mail.utoronto.ca>

Normally I would not pester the PC with every twitch and stumble of the 
RDS working group...but we are now in some important discussions as to 
whether law enforcement investigation is a valid reason for the 
collection of information in the RDS.  We just actually got a consensus 
agreement it was NOT....which surprised me.  However, EUROPOL, who was 
the driving force behind the dreadful 2007 LE demand for data, is coming 
out of their corner, and the IP lawyers will be quick to support.  A 
discussion at our next policy meeting might be good....I attach the 
letter from report which contains the 2009 LEA communications  for your 
perusal, see page 129 .

Steph

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll 
from 9 January Meeting
Date: 	Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:30:04 +0000
From: 	Mounier, Gr?gory <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>
To: 	'Chuck' <consult at cgomes.com>, 'gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org' 
<gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>



Dear all,

I will not be able to join the call tomorrow so I thought that I should 
drop an email to the list to explain why I voted against the proposed 
possible WG Agreement according to which ?/Criminal Activity/DNS Abuse ? 
Investigation is NOT a legitimate purpose for requiring collection of 
registration data, but maybe a legitimate purpose of using some data 
collected for other purposes/.?

I think that there are a number of rationales/grounds - including in 
ICANN?s Bylaws - to argue that in fact, investigating criminal activity 
and DNS Abuse *IS* a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection of 
registration data.

Some of these rationales have been mentioned during the discussion on 
the mailing list and during the call on 9^th January. Unfortunately, I 
think that the proposed possible WG agreement does not take into 
consideration these rationales. I specifically disagree with the 
assumption that we should make a distinction between 1) the purpose of 
collecting the data and 2) the purpose for using the data collected for 
other purposes (manage domain registrations).

The reason why I disagree with making this distinction is that it leads 
to artificially reduce the importance of a valid and legitimate purpose 
of the WHOIS system, acknowledged by ICANN Bylaws: addressing malicious 
abuse of the DNS and providing a framework to address appropriate law 
enforcement needs. (ICANN?s mandate is to ?ensure the stable and secure 
operation of the internet?s unique identifier systems?^^[1] <#_ftn1> + 
WHOIS data is essential for ?the legitimate needs of law enforcement? 
and for ?promoting consumer trust.?^^[2] <#_ftn2> ). In its document on 
the three compliance models issued last Friday^^[3] <#_ftn3>, ICANN has 
explicitly included: addressing the needs of law enforcement, 
investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse as legitimate purposes of the 
WHOIS system.

If one of the purpose of the WHOIS system is to support a framework to 
address issues involving domain name registrations, including 
investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse, it can be argued that 
investigating criminal activity and DNS abuse IS a legitimate purpose 
for requiring the collection of registration data. Likewise, I think 
that requiring collection of registration data to prevent crime is NOT 
beyond ICANN's mandate because this data is essential for ICANN to 
fulfil its mandate.

I have attached a list of relevant references supporting this point of 
view taken from ICANN?s Bylaws and the GDPR.

I hope that you?ll find this contribution helpful and I?m looking 
forward to reading the transcript of the next call J.

Best,

Greg

Gregory Mounier

Europol

European Cybercrime Centre

+31 6 55782743

*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On 
Behalf Of *Chuck
*Sent:* 12 January 2018 15:21
*To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
*Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 
January Meeting
*Importance:* High

The response to this week?s poll is particularly low so I strongly 
encourage more members to respond so that we have enough data to help us 
in our meeting next week.  Thanks to those who have already responded.

Chuck

*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On 
Behalf Of *Marika Konings
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:27 AM
*To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
*Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 
January Meeting

Dear all,

In follow-up to this week?s WG meeting, *all RDS PDP WG Members* are 
encouraged to participate in the following poll:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VM6S8YK

Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline 
reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580034/Poll-from-9January-Call.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1515544361000&api=v2

*This poll will close at COB Saturday 13 January. *

Please note that you _must be a WG Member_ to participate in polls. If 
you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first 
contact gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> to upgrade to 
WG Member.

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/ <mailto: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>/. 
/


------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1>ICANN Bylaws Article One, Section 1.1, Mission.

[2] <#_ftnref2>ICANN Bylaws, Registration Directory Services Review, 
?4.6(e).

[3] 
<#_ftnref3>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-12jan18-en.pdf

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

DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for 
the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not 
use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its 
contents or rely upon the information contained in it.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant 
e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment 
by Europol unless otherwise indicated.

*******************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180115/3d5b1b33/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NGRDS_WG_criminal_investigation_is a legitimate_purpose_for_collection_of_registration_data.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180115/3d5b1b33/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en(1).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 7112401 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180115/3d5b1b33/attachment-0001.pdf>

From lists at nickshorey.com  Tue Jan 16 18:51:50 2018
From: lists at nickshorey.com (Nick Shorey)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51:50 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for
 Poll from 9 January Meeting
In-Reply-To: <11827c83-1687-4d04-cc76-4c832c50afb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <B57B3AC26997C843A7227CBB3517A76D59048414@COIMBRA.europol.eu.int>
 <11827c83-1687-4d04-cc76-4c832c50afb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <88171056-34A2-4726-AEE2-89A6239C6948@nickshorey.com>

Hi Stephanie,

Thanks for sharing. For me there's an important distinction between primary and secondary purposes, which now become more important distinctions with regards to GDPR. IMHO LEA access is a legitimate secondary purpose, and I have some thoughts / ideas on how that should translate to access. I support a discussion on this and how we might approach the debate.

Kind regards,

Nick

Nick Shorey
Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
Email: lists at nickshorey.com
Skype: nick.shorey
Twitter: @nickshorey
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
Web: www.nickshorey.com




> On 15 Jan 2018, at 15:32, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> Normally I would not pester the PC with every twitch and stumble of the RDS working group...but we are now in some important discussions as to whether law enforcement investigation is a valid reason for the collection of information in the RDS.  We just actually got a consensus agreement it was NOT....which surprised me.  However, EUROPOL, who was the driving force behind the dreadful 2007 LE demand for data, is coming out of their corner, and the IP lawyers will be quick to support.  A discussion at our next policy meeting might be good....I attach the letter from report which contains the 2009 LEA communications  for your perusal, see page 129 .
> 
> Steph
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting
> Date:	Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:30:04 +0000
> From:	Mounier, Gr?gory <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu> <mailto:gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>
> To:	'Chuck' <consult at cgomes.com> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>, 'gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>' <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> I will not be able to join the call tomorrow so I thought that I should drop an email to the list to explain why I voted against the proposed possible WG Agreement according to which ?Criminal Activity/DNS Abuse ? Investigation is NOT a legitimate purpose for requiring collection of registration data, but maybe a legitimate purpose of using some data collected for other purposes.?
> 
> I think that there are a number of rationales/grounds - including in ICANN?s Bylaws - to argue that in fact, investigating criminal activity and DNS Abuse IS a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection of registration data.
> 
> Some of these rationales have been mentioned during the discussion on the mailing list and during the call on 9th January. Unfortunately, I think that the proposed possible WG agreement does not take into consideration these rationales. I specifically disagree with the assumption that we should make a distinction between 1) the purpose of collecting the data and 2) the purpose for using the data collected for other purposes (manage domain registrations). 
> 
> The reason why I disagree with making this distinction is that it leads to artificially reduce the importance of a valid and legitimate purpose of the WHOIS system, acknowledged by ICANN Bylaws: addressing malicious abuse of the DNS and providing a framework to address appropriate law enforcement needs. (ICANN?s mandate is to ?ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet?s unique identifier systems?[1] <x-msg://3/#_ftn1> + WHOIS data is essential for ?the legitimate needs of law enforcement? and for ?promoting consumer trust.?[2] <x-msg://3/#_ftn2> ). In its document on the three compliance models issued last Friday[3] <x-msg://3/#_ftn3>, ICANN has explicitly included: addressing the needs of law enforcement, investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse as legitimate purposes of the WHOIS system.
> 
> If one of the purpose of the WHOIS system is to support a framework to address issues involving domain name registrations, including investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse, it can be argued that investigating criminal activity and DNS abuse IS a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection of registration data. Likewise, I think that requiring collection of registration data to prevent crime is NOT beyond ICANN's mandate because this data is essential for ICANN to fulfil its mandate. 
> 
> I have attached a list of relevant references supporting this point of view taken from ICANN?s Bylaws and the GDPR.
>  
> I hope that you?ll find this contribution helpful and I?m looking forward to reading the transcript of the next call J.
>  
> Best, 
> 
> Greg
> 
>  
> 
> Gregory Mounier
> Europol
> European Cybercrime Centre
> +31 6 55782743
>  
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Chuck
> Sent: 12 January 2018 15:21
> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting
> Importance: High
>  
> The response to this week?s poll is particularly low so I strongly encourage more members to respond so that we have enough data to help us in our meeting next week.  Thanks to those who have already responded.
>  
> Chuck
> ? <>
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:27 AM
> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> In follow-up to this week?s WG meeting, all RDS PDP WG Members are encouraged to participate in the following poll:
>  
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VM6S8YK <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VM6S8YK>
>  
> Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:
>  
>               https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580034/Poll-from-9January-Call.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1515544361000&api=v2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580034/Poll-from-9January-Call.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1515544361000&api=v2>
>  
> This poll will close at COB Saturday 13 January. 
>  
> Please note that you must be a WG Member to participate in polls. If you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first contact gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> to upgrade to WG Member.
>  
> 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 <mailto: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>. 
>  
> 
> [1] <x-msg://3/#_ftnref1> ICANN Bylaws Article One, Section 1.1, Mission. 
> [2] <x-msg://3/#_ftnref2> ICANN Bylaws, Registration Directory Services Review, ?4.6(e).
> [3] <x-msg://3/#_ftnref3> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-12jan18-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-12jan18-en.pdf>*******************
> 
> DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it.
> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
> 
> *******************
> <NGRDS_WG_criminal_investigation_is a legitimate_purpose_for_collection_of_registration_data.pdf><Attached Message Part.txt><raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en(1).pdf>_______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180116/413e2061/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Tue Jan 16 19:57:44 2018
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:57:44 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC
 Strategic Planning Session
In-Reply-To: <VRbJd17-0AHSyUFAZtj_GyYop46MdcGo_uZbr9x83uoqahrHeQZtcoWoaZ-SvjwPL_1xQtcZiTCACJ2JBj21szlTO1Zyj_R0i2vKKlWx5Uw=@ferdeline.com>
References: <_7QdWAoojVrDzP3hnQShHTH9ujMHkb3zutHjZTnQ_tqzxvrohwRsvzhvsgN_x5ICKZPSiZ-Se8hvrgwPMN78u7NKUx7PUxzqw2h-6pvMaGQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CADzHdxesM-M6+50zSbZAnv4zjOamnF5N2GGW9cWL=arqdARj3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <UPaqnCWJq4s1VLWBuvjWQIJxkKRTnDRe_ZuJDy2Gu5DDn9C1TPngSaoLkhdWt0dZHtcCDYDjs1p3L4rwmzam3RX9Yq19KA8-NLZDN1uZJcQ=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAH5sThmd7hvPRd7ZO1Ra2bt6nNPxLrKgxeEWVtdhm181vVTT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <VRbJd17-0AHSyUFAZtj_GyYop46MdcGo_uZbr9x83uoqahrHeQZtcoWoaZ-SvjwPL_1xQtcZiTCACJ2JBj21szlTO1Zyj_R0i2vKKlWx5Uw=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <9f5bcdfb-4c1b-3263-3f09-2b5439ea3b0a@apc.org>

(observer)

Hi,


On 14-Jan-18 21:44, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> No one is going to log in to Adobe Connect for 16 hours; but when we
> are on a conference room, we are able to get everyone?s
> uninterrupted?attention.

I have been part of multiple days online conferences.? 2-3 hours at a
shot, with several hour breaks between them.? Sometimes those running
the conference have been together in one spot, sometimes not.

All sessions were recorded and they happened around the clock, at least
to an extent.

I for one prefer jet lag when I am in in my own home and have not had to
get in a metal tube first. And it is cheaper.

avri


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Jan 16 23:01:29 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:01:29 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for
 Poll from 9 January Meeting
In-Reply-To: <88171056-34A2-4726-AEE2-89A6239C6948@nickshorey.com>
References: <B57B3AC26997C843A7227CBB3517A76D59048414@COIMBRA.europol.eu.int>
 <11827c83-1687-4d04-cc76-4c832c50afb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <88171056-34A2-4726-AEE2-89A6239C6948@nickshorey.com>
Message-ID: <69d605f3-5c16-bfaf-6281-33fe0abaef88@mail.utoronto.ca>

Agreed, and the secondary purposes for processing should not be grounds 
for collection of data....there will be no end to the data desired by 
the IP community if we accede to that.  WHich is why I joined Steve 
Metalitz's little drafting group today, even though I am super busy.

I would draw your attention to the letter from the 5 Eyes law 
enforcement community in that report.  AS a former bureaucrat, you will 
recognize weasel words when you see them....most of the High Courts for 
the countries listed would not, and indeed have not, found in favour of 
these arguments for blanket data gathering for law enforcement 
purposes.  I would love to see the constitutional opinions sought, and 
am betting (based on those weasel words) that none were sought.This is 
not to say that further processing (release) to duly authorized agents, 
with due authority is not desireable and should not be 
accommodated.....it must.  But how to set this up is not a problem ICANN 
has tackled in good faith thus far, and it is high time.  In my opinion.

Stephanie


On 2018-01-16 11:51 AM, Nick Shorey wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Thanks for sharing. For me there's an important distinction between 
> primary and secondary purposes, which now become more important 
> distinctions with regards to GDPR. IMHO LEA access is a legitimate 
> secondary purpose, and I have some thoughts / ideas on how that should 
> translate to access. I support a discussion on this and how we might 
> approach the debate.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nick
>
> Nick Shorey
> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>
> Skype: nick.shorey
> Twitter: @nickshorey
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
> Web: www.nickshorey.com
>
>
>
>
>> On 15 Jan 2018, at 15:32, Stephanie Perrin 
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>> Normally I would not pester the PC with every twitch and stumble of 
>> the RDS working group...but we are now in some important discussions 
>> as to whether law enforcement investigation is a valid reason for the 
>> collection of information in the RDS.  We just actually got a 
>> consensus agreement it was NOT....which surprised me.  However, 
>> EUROPOL, who was the driving force behind the dreadful 2007 LE demand 
>> for data, is coming out of their corner, and the IP lawyers will be 
>> quick to support.  A discussion at our next policy meeting might be 
>> good....I attach the letter from report which contains the 2009 LEA 
>> communications for your perusal, see page 129 .
>>
>> Steph
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll 
>> from 9 January Meeting
>> Date: 	Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:30:04 +0000
>> From: 	Mounier, Gr?gory<gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>
>> To: 	'Chuck'<consult at cgomes.com>, 
>> 'gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org'<gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I will not be able to join the call tomorrow so I thought that I 
>> should drop an email to the list to explain why I voted against the 
>> proposed possible WG Agreement according to which ?/Criminal 
>> Activity/DNS Abuse ? Investigation is NOT a legitimate purpose for 
>> requiring collection of registration data, but maybe a legitimate 
>> purpose of using some data collected for other purposes/.?
>>
>> I think that there are a number of rationales/grounds - including in 
>> ICANN?s Bylaws - to argue that in fact, investigating criminal 
>> activity and DNS Abuse*IS*a legitimate purpose for requiring the 
>> collection of registration data.
>>
>> Some of these rationales have been mentioned during the discussion on 
>> the mailing list and during the call on 9^th January. Unfortunately, 
>> I think that the proposed possible WG agreement does not take into 
>> consideration these rationales. I specifically disagree with the 
>> assumption that we should make a distinction between 1) the purpose 
>> of collecting the data and 2) the purpose for using the data 
>> collected for other purposes (manage domain registrations).
>>
>> The reason why I disagree with making this distinction is that it 
>> leads to artificially reduce the importance of a valid and legitimate 
>> purpose of the WHOIS system, acknowledged by ICANN Bylaws: addressing 
>> malicious abuse of the DNS and providing a framework to address 
>> appropriate law enforcement needs. (ICANN?s mandate is to ?ensure the 
>> stable and secure operation of the internet?s unique identifier 
>> systems?^^[1] <x-msg://3/#_ftn1>+ WHOIS data is essential for ?the 
>> legitimate needs of law enforcement? and for ?promoting consumer 
>> trust.?^^[2] <x-msg://3/#_ftn2>). In its document on the three 
>> compliance models issued last Friday^^[3] <x-msg://3/#_ftn3>, ICANN 
>> has explicitly included: addressing the needs of law enforcement, 
>> investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse as legitimate purposes of 
>> the WHOIS system.
>>
>> If one of the purpose of the WHOIS system is to support a framework 
>> to address issues involving domain name registrations, including 
>> investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse, it can be argued that 
>> investigating criminal activity and DNS abuse IS a legitimate purpose 
>> for requiring the collection of registration data. Likewise, I think 
>> that requiring collection of registration data to prevent crime is 
>> NOT beyond ICANN's mandate because this data is essential for ICANN 
>> to fulfil its mandate.
>>
>> I have attached a list of relevant references supporting this point 
>> of view taken from ICANN?s Bylaws and the GDPR.
>> I hope that you?ll find this contribution helpful and I?m looking 
>> forward to reading the transcript of the next callJ.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> Gregory Mounier
>> Europol
>> European Cybercrime Centre
>> +31 6 55782743
>> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org]*On 
>> Behalf Of*Chuck
>> *Sent:*12 January 2018 15:21
>> *To:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:*[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 
>> January Meeting
>> *Importance:*High
>> The response to this week?s poll is particularly low so I strongly 
>> encourage more members to respond so that we have enough data to help 
>> us in our meeting next week.  Thanks to those who have already responded.
>> Chuck
>> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org]*On 
>> Behalf Of*Marika Konings
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:27 AM
>> *To:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:*[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 
>> January Meeting
>> Dear all,
>> In follow-up to this week?s WG meeting, *all RDS PDP WG Members* are 
>> encouraged to participate in the following poll:
>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VM6S8YK
>> Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline 
>> reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580034/Poll-from-9January-Call.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1515544361000&api=v2
>> *This poll will close at COB Saturday 13 January. *
>> Please note that you _must be a WG Member_ to participate in polls. 
>> If you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must 
>> first contact gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> to 
>> upgrade to WG Member.
>> 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/ <mailto: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>/. 
>> /
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [1] <x-msg://3/#_ftnref1>ICANN Bylaws Article One, Section 1.1, Mission.
>> [2] <x-msg://3/#_ftnref2>ICANN Bylaws, Registration Directory 
>> Services Review, ?4.6(e).
>> [3] 
>> <x-msg://3/#_ftnref3>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-12jan18-en.pdf
>> *******************
>>
>> DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended 
>> for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you 
>> may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of 
>> its contents or rely upon the information contained in it.
>> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the 
>> relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute 
>> a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
>>
>> *******************
>> <NGRDS_WG_criminal_investigation_is a 
>> legitimate_purpose_for_collection_of_registration_data.pdf><Attached 
>> Message 
>> Part.txt><raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en(1).pdf>_______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180116/70150562/attachment.htm>

From lists at nickshorey.com  Fri Jan 19 01:04:19 2018
From: lists at nickshorey.com (Nick Shorey)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:04:19 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for
 Poll from 9 January Meeting
In-Reply-To: <69d605f3-5c16-bfaf-6281-33fe0abaef88@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <B57B3AC26997C843A7227CBB3517A76D59048414@COIMBRA.europol.eu.int>
 <11827c83-1687-4d04-cc76-4c832c50afb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <88171056-34A2-4726-AEE2-89A6239C6948@nickshorey.com>
 <69d605f3-5c16-bfaf-6281-33fe0abaef88@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <A76084CB-7CC6-45B8-AB12-BA18596A4438@nickshorey.com>

Thanks Stephanie,

I will take a read of the 5EYES letter in the meantime.

Kind regards,

Nick

Nick Shorey
Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
Email: lists at nickshorey.com
Skype: nick.shorey
Twitter: @nickshorey
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
Web: www.nickshorey.com




> On 16 Jan 2018, at 21:01, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> Agreed, and the secondary purposes for processing should not be grounds for collection of data....there will be no end to the data desired by the IP community if we accede to that.  WHich is why I joined Steve Metalitz's little drafting group today, even though I am super busy.
> 
> I would draw your attention to the letter from the 5 Eyes law enforcement community in that report.  AS a former bureaucrat, you will recognize weasel words when you see them....most of the High Courts for the countries listed would not, and indeed have not, found in favour of these arguments for blanket data gathering for law enforcement purposes.  I would love to see the constitutional opinions sought, and am betting (based on those weasel words) that none were sought.This is not to say that further processing (release) to duly authorized agents, with due authority is not desireable and should not be accommodated.....it must.  But how to set this up is not a problem ICANN has tackled in good faith thus far, and it is high time.  In my opinion.
> 
> Stephanie
> 
> On 2018-01-16 11:51 AM, Nick Shorey wrote:
>> Hi Stephanie,
>> 
>> Thanks for sharing. For me there's an important distinction between primary and secondary purposes, which now become more important distinctions with regards to GDPR. IMHO LEA access is a legitimate secondary purpose, and I have some thoughts / ideas on how that should translate to access. I support a discussion on this and how we might approach the debate.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> Nick Shorey
>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>
>> Skype: nick.shorey
>> Twitter: @nickshorey
>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin>
>> Web: www.nickshorey.com <http://www.nickshorey.com/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 15 Jan 2018, at 15:32, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Normally I would not pester the PC with every twitch and stumble of the RDS working group...but we are now in some important discussions as to whether law enforcement investigation is a valid reason for the collection of information in the RDS.  We just actually got a consensus agreement it was NOT....which surprised me.  However, EUROPOL, who was the driving force behind the dreadful 2007 LE demand for data, is coming out of their corner, and the IP lawyers will be quick to support.  A discussion at our next policy meeting might be good....I attach the letter from report which contains the 2009 LEA communications  for your perusal, see page 129 .
>>> Steph
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting
>>> Date:	Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:30:04 +0000
>>> From:	Mounier, Gr?gory <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu> <mailto:gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>
>>> To:	'Chuck' <consult at cgomes.com> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>, 'gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>' <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I will not be able to join the call tomorrow so I thought that I should drop an email to the list to explain why I voted against the proposed possible WG Agreement according to which ?Criminal Activity/DNS Abuse ? Investigation is NOT a legitimate purpose for requiring collection of registration data, but maybe a legitimate purpose of using some data collected for other purposes.?
>>> 
>>> I think that there are a number of rationales/grounds - including in ICANN?s Bylaws - to argue that in fact, investigating criminal activity and DNS Abuse IS a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection of registration data.
>>> 
>>> Some of these rationales have been mentioned during the discussion on the mailing list and during the call on 9th January. Unfortunately, I think that the proposed possible WG agreement does not take into consideration these rationales. I specifically disagree with the assumption that we should make a distinction between 1) the purpose of collecting the data and 2) the purpose for using the data collected for other purposes (manage domain registrations).
>>> 
>>> The reason why I disagree with making this distinction is that it leads to artificially reduce the importance of a valid and legitimate purpose of the WHOIS system, acknowledged by ICANN Bylaws: addressing malicious abuse of the DNS and providing a framework to address appropriate law enforcement needs. (ICANN?s mandate is to ?ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet?s unique identifier systems?[1] <x-msg://3/#_ftn1> + WHOIS data is essential for ?the legitimate needs of law enforcement? and for ?promoting consumer trust.?[2] <x-msg://3/#_ftn2> ). In its document on the three compliance models issued last Friday[3] <x-msg://3/#_ftn3>, ICANN has explicitly included: addressing the needs of law enforcement, investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse as legitimate purposes of the WHOIS system.
>>> 
>>> If one of the purpose of the WHOIS system is to support a framework to address issues involving domain name registrations, including investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse, it can be argued that investigating criminal activity and DNS abuse IS a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection of registration data. Likewise, I think that requiring collection of registration data to prevent crime is NOT beyond ICANN's mandate because this data is essential for ICANN to fulfil its mandate.
>>> 
>>> I have attached a list of relevant references supporting this point of view taken from ICANN?s Bylaws and the GDPR.
>>> 
>>> I hope that you?ll find this contribution helpful and I?m looking forward to reading the transcript of the next call J.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Greg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Gregory Mounier
>>> Europol
>>> European Cybercrime Centre
>>> +31 6 55782743
>>> 
>>> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Chuck
>>> Sent: 12 January 2018 15:21
>>> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting
>>> Importance: High
>>> 
>>> The response to this week?s poll is particularly low so I strongly encourage more members to respond so that we have enough data to help us in our meeting next week.  Thanks to those who have already responded.
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> ? <>
>>> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:27 AM
>>> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> In follow-up to this week?s WG meeting, all RDS PDP WG Members are encouraged to participate in the following poll:
>>> 
>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VM6S8YK <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VM6S8YK>
>>> 
>>> Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:
>>> 
>>>               https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580034/Poll-from-9January-Call.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1515544361000&api=v2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580034/Poll-from-9January-Call.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1515544361000&api=v2>
>>> 
>>> This poll will close at COB Saturday 13 January.
>>> 
>>> Please note that you must be a WG Member to participate in polls. If you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first contact gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> to upgrade to WG Member.
>>> 
>>> 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 <mailto: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>.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] <x-msg://3/#_ftnref1> ICANN Bylaws Article One, Section 1.1, Mission.
>>> [2] <x-msg://3/#_ftnref2> ICANN Bylaws, Registration Directory Services Review, ?4.6(e).
>>> [3] <x-msg://3/#_ftnref3> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-12jan18-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-12jan18-en.pdf>*******************
>>> 
>>> DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it.
>>> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
>>> 
>>> *******************
>>> <NGRDS_WG_criminal_investigation_is a legitimate_purpose_for_collection_of_registration_data.pdf><Attached Message Part.txt><raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct10-en(1).pdf>_______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180118/09f86a83/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180118/09f86a83/attachment.sig>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Jan 21 01:03:11 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 08:03:11 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG Policy call agenda for 24th Jan
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnY6Hbw7if=mdi8qw2uSXYr6fULMENOKLNAGthKqSiWvA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I sent this to NCSG list instead of PC list.

Rafik

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



Hi all,

please find the draft agenda for the next policy call in 24th Jan,  any
other agenda item to add?

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

   - Council agenda:
   - Motions for vote:

(links will be added when available)
III. Policy Update
- Planning public comments responses:  https://www.icann.org/public-
comments#open-public  & list of volunteers https://community.i
cann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2017 & ht
tps://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018
- Policy topics:
  * Update from working groups, review teams

IV. AOB
   - GDPR models inputs
   - ICANN FY19 budget
   - Nomcom review assessment report input

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180121/c7712b3b/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Jan 21 01:40:55 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 08:40:55 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

in coming days we have several deadlines for public comments and request
for input:


   - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the
deadline is *the
   2nd Feb*:
   https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit
   - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I
   think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st Feb*
   - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the deadline
   of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for clarification
   - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide any
   feedback
   - 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 several areas to cover and we need all PC members involvement here
for review and drafting comments.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180121/dac09d20/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sun Jan 21 13:41:23 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 06:41:23 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG Policy call agenda for 24th Jan
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnY6Hbw7if=mdi8qw2uSXYr6fULMENOKLNAGthKqSiWvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnY6Hbw7if=mdi8qw2uSXYr6fULMENOKLNAGthKqSiWvA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <zy5EVoqA7h135e_VV2wRgkIXE2cnUYakQ8bKlHESSO7-WPKUX-YRhv06G815YY0KVWO_WS3Q0egMODpN0dYMaOV3iD-vBROtBURLFPpS9Io=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks, Rafik?

Under AOB can we please add "Additional Budgetary Requests"; might be good to touch base for a few minutes and to discuss whether we as a PC want to put any ideas forward to the NCSG EC? I have heard the idea of accessible policy primers being floated, and I'd like to see on our call how much interest there might be in asking for 20 hours/month of a consultant to help us in performing research.

Kind regards,

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 20 January 2018 11:03 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I sent this to NCSG list instead of PC list.
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> Hi all,
>
> please find the draft agenda for the next policy call in 24th Jan,  any other agenda item to add?
>
> I. Roll call/Introduction
> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation
>
> - Council agenda:
>
> - Motions for vote:
>
> (links will be added when available)
> III. Policy Update- Planning public comments responses:  https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public  & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2017 & https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018
> - Policy topics:  * Update from working groups, review teams
>
> IV. AOB
>    - GDPR models inputs
>    - ICANN FY19 budget
>    - Nomcom review assessment report input
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180121/68cc2628/attachment.htm>

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Sun Jan 21 16:22:57 2018
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 09:22:57 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG Policy call agenda for 24th Jan
In-Reply-To: <zy5EVoqA7h135e_VV2wRgkIXE2cnUYakQ8bKlHESSO7-WPKUX-YRhv06G815YY0KVWO_WS3Q0egMODpN0dYMaOV3iD-vBROtBURLFPpS9Io=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThnY6Hbw7if=mdi8qw2uSXYr6fULMENOKLNAGthKqSiWvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <zy5EVoqA7h135e_VV2wRgkIXE2cnUYakQ8bKlHESSO7-WPKUX-YRhv06G815YY0KVWO_WS3Q0egMODpN0dYMaOV3iD-vBROtBURLFPpS9Io=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <c6eb734d-2059-4fc5-3314-e2b1a4c7f382@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All,

I'm an observer to the PC list, but +1 to Ayden's suggestion of a 
consultant to help us perform research and draft comments. This role has 
worked well in other Stakeholder Groups, decreased their time for 
submission of comments and increased their volume of comments -- all 
while staying true to their mission and goals. They tend to be 
professional writers with knowledge of the ICANN terminology - but 
beyond that, we (NCSG) would "call the shots."

Best, Kathy


On 1/21/2018 6:41 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Thanks, Rafik?
>
> Under AOB can we please add "Additional Budgetary Requests"; might be 
> good to touch base for a few minutes and to discuss whether we as a PC 
> want to put any ideas forward to the NCSG EC? I have heard the idea of 
> accessible policy primers being floated, and I'd like to see on our 
> call how much interest there might be in asking for 20 hours/month of 
> a consultant to help us in performing research.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 20 January 2018 11:03 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I sent this to NCSG list instead of PC list.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> please find the draft agenda for the next policy call in 24th Jan,  
>> any other agenda item to add?
>>
>>
>> I. Roll call/Introduction
>> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation
>>
>>   * Council agenda:
>>   * Motions for vote:
>>
>> (links will be added when available)
>> III. Policy Update
>> - Planning public comments responses: 
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public 
>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public>& list of 
>> volunteers 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2017 
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2017> & 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018> 
>>
>> - Policy topics:
>> * Update from working groups, review teams
>>
>> IV. AOB
>>    - GDPR models inputs
>>    - ICANN FY19 budget
>>    - Nomcom review assessment report input
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180121/56604c92/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Mon Jan 22 17:47:33 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:47:33 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BjwFRQt9y7vsI9fsBwf7hq9_cD9OmkvMSGiDf-24iTbtT0rgXsgVqRbsolUPEdMCIX5hrLThbOOCLeCtA9xPduDyqrIixMZIlkloriCKbKg=@ferdeline.com>

Just a minor clarification, the deadline for submitting questions to Finance re: fiscal year 19 budget is 30 January per [this page](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy19-budget-2018-01-19-en). My apologies, I think I spread the wrong date of 31 January. Unless someone else would like to do so, I am happy to take the lead on coordinating the compilation of our clarifying questions. Thanks.

? Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 20 January 2018 11:40 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> in coming days we have several deadlines for public comments and request for input:
>
> - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the deadline is the 2nd Feb: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit
>
> - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is 1st Feb
>
> - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the deadline of 31st Jan to submit any question or ask for clarification
> - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline 2nd Feb to provide any feedback
> - 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 several areas to cover and we need all PC members involvement here for review and drafting comments.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180122/38575593/attachment.htm>

From lists at nickshorey.com  Mon Jan 22 17:50:36 2018
From: lists at nickshorey.com (Nick Shorey)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:50:36 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <BjwFRQt9y7vsI9fsBwf7hq9_cD9OmkvMSGiDf-24iTbtT0rgXsgVqRbsolUPEdMCIX5hrLThbOOCLeCtA9xPduDyqrIixMZIlkloriCKbKg=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BjwFRQt9y7vsI9fsBwf7hq9_cD9OmkvMSGiDf-24iTbtT0rgXsgVqRbsolUPEdMCIX5hrLThbOOCLeCtA9xPduDyqrIixMZIlkloriCKbKg=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <C71A2C0E-E67F-4A73-BD5C-88E05D46B775@nickshorey.com>

Hi folks,

Have we got an online version of Stephanie?s draft GDPR Compliance models response yet?

Nick

Nick Shorey
Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
Email: lists at nickshorey.com
Skype: nick.shorey
Twitter: @nickshorey
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
Web: www.nickshorey.com




> On 22 Jan 2018, at 15:47, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Just a minor clarification, the deadline for submitting questions to Finance re: fiscal year 19 budget is 30 January per this page <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy19-budget-2018-01-19-en>. My apologies, I think I spread the wrong date of 31 January. Unless someone else would like to do so, I am happy to take the lead on coordinating the compilation of our clarifying questions. Thanks.
> 
> ? Ayden
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 20 January 2018 11:40 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> in coming days we have several deadlines for public comments and request for input:
>> 
>> The draft for operating standards for specific review, the deadline is the 2nd Feb: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit>
>> The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is 1st Feb
>> The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the deadline of 31st Jan to submit any question or ask for clarification
>> Nomcom review assessment report, deadline 2nd Feb to provide any feedback
>> GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-proposed-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 several areas to cover and we need all PC members involvement here for review and drafting comments.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180122/c77717f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180122/c77717f6/attachment.sig>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Mon Jan 22 21:48:39 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:48:39 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT:
 Invitation for Poll from 9 January Meeting
In-Reply-To: <11827c83-1687-4d04-cc76-4c832c50afb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <B57B3AC26997C843A7227CBB3517A76D59048414@COIMBRA.europol.eu.int>
 <11827c83-1687-4d04-cc76-4c832c50afb2@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxecQ8wDa8viG97Mqa3OkneUCCv-Z1-PPdcvz-m_s27qQg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Stephanie for raising this issue. We can discuss this and see what
we can propose and which policy comment we should consider to monitor in
the future. I think this has also many links with the GDPR.


Le mar. 16 janv. 2018 ? 08:00, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit :

> Normally I would not pester the PC with every twitch and stumble of the
> RDS working group...but we are now in some important discussions as to
> whether law enforcement investigation is a valid reason for the collection
> of information in the RDS.  We just actually got a consensus agreement it
> was NOT....which surprised me.  However, EUROPOL, who was the driving force
> behind the dreadful 2007 LE demand for data, is coming out of their corner,
> and the IP lawyers will be quick to support.  A discussion at our next
> policy meeting might be good....I attach the letter from report which
> contains the 2009 LEA communications  for your perusal, see page 129 .
> Steph
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] @EXT: RE: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from
> 9 January Meeting
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:30:04 +0000
> From: Mounier, Gr?gory <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>
> <gregory.mounier at europol.europa.eu>
> To: 'Chuck' <consult at cgomes.com> <consult at cgomes.com>, '
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org' <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I will not be able to join the call tomorrow so I thought that I should
> drop an email to the list to explain why I voted against the proposed
> possible WG Agreement according to which ?*Criminal Activity/DNS Abuse ?
> Investigation is NOT a legitimate purpose for requiring collection of
> registration data, but maybe a legitimate purpose of using some data
> collected for other purposes*.?
>
> I think that there are a number of rationales/grounds - including in
> ICANN?s Bylaws - to argue that in fact, investigating criminal activity and
> DNS Abuse *IS* a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection of
> registration data.
>
> Some of these rationales have been mentioned during the discussion on the
> mailing list and during the call on 9th January. Unfortunately, I think
> that the proposed possible WG agreement does not take into consideration
> these rationales. I specifically disagree with the assumption that we
> should make a distinction between 1) the purpose of collecting the data and
> 2) the purpose for using the data collected for other purposes (manage
> domain registrations).
>
> The reason why I disagree with making this distinction is that it leads to
> artificially reduce the importance of a valid and legitimate purpose of the
> WHOIS system, acknowledged by ICANN Bylaws: addressing malicious abuse of
> the DNS and providing a framework to address appropriate law enforcement
> needs. (ICANN?s mandate is to ?ensure the stable and secure operation of
> the internet?s unique identifier systems?[1]
> <#m_3009014289960177855__ftn1> + WHOIS data is essential for ?the
> legitimate needs of law enforcement? and for ?promoting consumer trust.?
> [2] <#m_3009014289960177855__ftn2> ). In its document on the three
> compliance models issued last Friday[3] <#m_3009014289960177855__ftn3>,
> ICANN has explicitly included: addressing the needs of law enforcement,
> investigation of cybercrime and DNS abuse as legitimate purposes of the
> WHOIS system.
>
> If one of the purpose of the WHOIS system is to support a framework to
> address issues involving domain name registrations, including investigation
> of cybercrime and DNS abuse, it can be argued that investigating criminal
> activity and DNS abuse IS a legitimate purpose for requiring the collection
> of registration data. Likewise, I think that requiring collection of
> registration data to prevent crime is NOT beyond ICANN's mandate because
> this data is essential for ICANN to fulfil its mandate.
>
> I have attached a list of relevant references supporting this point of
> view taken from ICANN?s Bylaws and the GDPR.
>
>
>
> I hope that you?ll find this contribution helpful and I?m looking forward
> to reading the transcript of the next call J.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Gregory Mounier
>
> Europol
>
> European Cybercrime Centre
>
> +31 6 55782743 <+31%206%2055782743>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Chuck
> *Sent:* 12 January 2018 15:21
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9
> January Meeting
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> The response to this week?s poll is particularly low so I strongly
> encourage more members to respond so that we have enough data to help us in
> our meeting next week.  Thanks to those who have already responded.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:27 AM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9
> January Meeting
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> In follow-up to this week?s WG meeting, *all RDS PDP WG Members* are
> encouraged to participate in the following poll:
>
>
>
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VM6S8YK
>
>
>
> Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline
> reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:
>
>
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580034/Poll-from-9January-Call.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1515544361000&api=v2
>
>
>
> *This poll will close at COB Saturday 13 January. *
>
>
>
> Please note that you *must be a WG Member* to participate in polls. If
> you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first
> contact gnso-secs at icann.org to upgrade to WG Member.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *Marika Konings*
>
> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>
> *Email: **marika.konings at icann.org* <marika.konings at icann.org>
>
>
>
> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
>
> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our **interactive courses*
> <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>* and visiting the **GNSO Newcomer
> pages*
> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>
> *. *
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [1] <#m_3009014289960177855__ftnref1> ICANN Bylaws Article One, Section
> 1.1, Mission.
>
> [2] <#m_3009014289960177855__ftnref2> ICANN Bylaws, Registration
> Directory Services Review, ?4.6(e).
>
> [3] <#m_3009014289960177855__ftnref3>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/interim-models-gdpr-compliance-12jan18-en.pdf
> *******************
>
> DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for
> the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not
> use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents
> or rely upon the information contained in it.
> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant
> e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by
> Europol unless otherwise indicated.
>
> *******************
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180122/6a4e27a3/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Jan 23 02:11:50 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:11:50 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <BjwFRQt9y7vsI9fsBwf7hq9_cD9OmkvMSGiDf-24iTbtT0rgXsgVqRbsolUPEdMCIX5hrLThbOOCLeCtA9xPduDyqrIixMZIlkloriCKbKg=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BjwFRQt9y7vsI9fsBwf7hq9_cD9OmkvMSGiDf-24iTbtT0rgXsgVqRbsolUPEdMCIX5hrLThbOOCLeCtA9xPduDyqrIixMZIlkloriCKbKg=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmQTJ3+3pNmqGFR54P+MCBTuN92_osBP_3DVVraA9tTmQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ayden for volunteering.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-23 0:47 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Just a minor clarification, the deadline for submitting questions to
> Finance re: fiscal year 19 budget is 30 January per this page
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy19-budget-2018-01-19-en>. My
> apologies, I think I spread the wrong date of 31 January. Unless someone
> else would like to do so, I am happy to take the lead on coordinating the
> compilation of our clarifying questions. Thanks.
>
> ? Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 20 January 2018 11:40 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> in coming days we have several deadlines for public comments and request
> for input:
>
>
>    - The draft for operating standards for specific review, the deadline
>    is *the 2nd Feb*: https://docs.google.com/document/d/
>    12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12pERsLkRtSg0hqgSDw9VWMRtuw59TQXcIvuEmyJ9e9A/edit>
>    - The incremental changes for meeting strategy, not draft yet and I
>    think we should draft our own response asap, the deadline is *1st Feb*
>    - The FY19 budget and operating plan just started, we have the
>    deadline of *31st Jan* to submit any question or ask for clarification
>    - Nomcom review assessment report, deadline *2nd Feb* to provide any
>    feedback
>    - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/
>    blog/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-feedback-on-
>    proposed-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 several areas to cover and we need all PC members involvement here
> for review and drafting comments.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180123/affd17f1/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Jan 23 02:44:04 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:44:04 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG Policy call agenda for 24th Jan
In-Reply-To: <zy5EVoqA7h135e_VV2wRgkIXE2cnUYakQ8bKlHESSO7-WPKUX-YRhv06G815YY0KVWO_WS3Q0egMODpN0dYMaOV3iD-vBROtBURLFPpS9Io=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThnY6Hbw7if=mdi8qw2uSXYr6fULMENOKLNAGthKqSiWvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <zy5EVoqA7h135e_VV2wRgkIXE2cnUYakQ8bKlHESSO7-WPKUX-YRhv06G815YY0KVWO_WS3Q0egMODpN0dYMaOV3iD-vBROtBURLFPpS9Io=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm74eygGLLpcgxdsnYucRZQcLtny+G8k8+7aoDXnVfkxA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ayden,

Thanks we will try to cover that. hope we can make the whole agenda in time.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-21 20:41 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Thanks, Rafik?
>
> Under AOB can we please add "Additional Budgetary Requests"; might be good
> to touch base for a few minutes and to discuss whether we as a PC want to
> put any ideas forward to the NCSG EC? I have heard the idea of accessible
> policy primers being floated, and I'd like to see on our call how much
> interest there might be in asking for 20 hours/month of a consultant to
> help us in performing research.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 20 January 2018 11:03 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I sent this to NCSG list instead of PC list.
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> please find the draft agenda for the next policy call in 24th Jan,  any
> other agenda item to add?
>
>
> I. Roll call/Introduction
> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation
>
>    - Council agenda:
>    - Motions for vote:
>
> (links will be added when available)
> III. Policy Update
> - Planning public comments responses:  https://www.icann.org/public-
> comments#open-public  & list of volunteers https://community.i
> cann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2017 & ht
> tps://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018
> - Policy topics:
>   * Update from working groups, review teams
>
> IV. AOB
>    - GDPR models inputs
>    - ICANN FY19 budget
>    - Nomcom review assessment report input
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180123/99393916/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Jan 23 02:53:57 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:53:57 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG Policy call agenda for 24th Jan
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkiegTCiOke0RDGvqunKcjj_Oc0Jh3x=KfbQH=FF8Ecdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkiegTCiOke0RDGvqunKcjj_Oc0Jh3x=KfbQH=FF8Ecdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkXMPpSe8qpLdHJd45NvimYdtN0+po_vtGrPgfNc=-SKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

please find the  updated draft agenda for the next policy call:

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

   - Council agenda:
   https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+30+January+2018
   - Motions for vote:
      -
      https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+30+January+2018
      - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+
      30+January+2018

III. Policy Update
- Planning public comments responses:  https://www.icann.org/public-
comments#open-public  & list of volunteers https://community.i
cann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2017 & ht
tps://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018
- Policy topics:
  * Update from working groups, review teams

IV. Misc
   - GDPR Compliance models inputs
   - ICANN FY19 budget
   - Nomcom review assessment report input
   - Additional Budget Requests
   - NCPH intersessional & GNSO council strategical meeting

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180123/a0b45241/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sat Jan 27 20:50:34 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 03:50:34 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for submission
ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act quickly within
this weekend .

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Cc:

I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.



Principles

Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
acceptable to the NCSG.



1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That is,
the data that is collected and the data that are published must directly
and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in Article 1 of
its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that is based on
the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
wants it for any reason.



2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and not
vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized governance of
the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible and
coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.



3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for
access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
community review and approval.



Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only viable
option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to that
which is required for maintaining the stability, security and resiliency of
the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would be
presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
process for gaining access to additional information.



There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
name of the registrant.



The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is completely
unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor is, we
believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified by the
purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.



Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
affected.



Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/f6731de5/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Sat Jan 27 21:09:27 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 14:09:27 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>

Thanks Rafik

I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.

To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement. It sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent in our messaging.

Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.

Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.

Best wishes, Ayden

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act quickly within this weekend .
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> Cc:
>
>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12 January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>
>> Principles
>>
>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is acceptable to the NCSG.
>>
>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who wants it for any reason.
>>
>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible and coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>
>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to community review and approval.
>>
>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar, registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due process for gaining access to additional information.
>>
>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record, such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the name of the registrant.
>>
>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>
>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures, and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals affected.
>>
>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180127/cdef7791/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Jan 27 22:47:52 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 15:47:52 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR compliance
Message-ID: <5a059baa-0a58-fccc-1d66-18338e9de25b@mail.utoronto.ca>

COlleagues, my apologies for being so late.? I have had no end of 
headaches with my computer and my Internet access.? Not a good excuse, I 
know, but there you are.? Here is draft 2.....I am still working on this 
document, but have dumped the legal analysis till later as it is 
complex.? Should be through editing my comments on the other draft 
proposals submitted shortly, and will send you the updated version.

Apologies again....comments welcome.

Stephanie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180127/484552a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2Comments on GDPR Interim Compliance Models for WHOIS-1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 167034 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180127/484552a6/attachment.docx>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 08:17:13 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:17:13 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmdtx2CC6T7HzVEBN6dfBZJUMG_eS97mA-uSXOFwauc-Q@mail.gmail.com>

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
>    <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/13uG7wN5FWFa1E3cpDPfUolsIxlN4W
pMw73FWOxx8VEU/edit?usp=sharing , please review asap

>
>    - GDPR compliance models : https://www.icann.org/news/b
>    log/data-protection-and-privacy-update-seeking-community-
>    feedback-on-proposed-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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/0798a664/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 15:46:34 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 08:46:34 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmdtx2CC6T7HzVEBN6dfBZJUMG_eS97mA-uSXOFwauc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmdtx2CC6T7HzVEBN6dfBZJUMG_eS97mA-uSXOFwauc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWp3hLwn_ZDTtSHXzG0qazFxF49=MvvOJaur2Wyqs8ntMw@mail.gmail.com>

I have started a draft comment on the Proposed Incremental Changes to ICANN
Meetings and hope to share it soon for your inputs.

------------------------
**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>)

2018-01-28 1:17 GMT-05:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>    <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/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
>>    <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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/91895946/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Jan 28 16:16:48 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:16:48 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>

I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been 
submitted in before I run for? the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not 
happen.? The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and 
more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.? It will be 
a long time before this is over....

We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.? While 
option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.

cheers SP

On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
> Thanks Rafik
>
> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24?hours?until I read the 
> comments currently?being drafted by?Stephanie.
>
> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement. 
> It sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if 
> Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re 
> being consistent in our messaging.
>
> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions,?I?ll write 
> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on 
> the table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>
> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for 
>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act 
>> quickly within this weekend .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu 
>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>> Cc:
>>
>>     I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on
>>     the 12 January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>
>>     Principles
>>
>>     Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>>     fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all
>>     three is acceptable to the NCSG.
>>
>>     1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission.
>>     That is, the data that is collected and the data that are
>>     published must directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's
>>     mission as defined in Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any
>>     definition of Whois purpose that is based on the way people
>>     happen to make use of data that can be accessed indiscriminately
>>     in a public directory. The fact that certain people currently use
>>     Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois is
>>     to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to
>>     anyone who wants it for any reason.
>>
>>     2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform
>>     and not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide
>>     globalized governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be
>>     globally compatible and coordinated. Any solution that involves
>>     fragmenting the policies and practices of Whois along
>>     jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>
>>     3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new
>>     criteria for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months.
>>     We would strongly resist throwing the community into a hopeless
>>     rush to come up with entirely new policies, standards and
>>     practices involving tiered access to data, and we do not want
>>     ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to community
>>     review and approval.
>>
>>     Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the
>>     only viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly
>>     displayed to that which is required for maintaining the
>>     stability, security and resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be
>>     applied across the board, and would be presumptively legal
>>     regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar, registry or
>>     registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>>     process for gaining access to additional information.
>>
>>     There is room for discussion about how much data could be
>>     publicly displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission.
>>     E.g., it may be within ICANN's mission to include additional data
>>     in the public record, such as an email address for the technical
>>     contact and even possibly the name of the registrant.
>>
>>     The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is
>>     completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party
>>     requestor is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is
>>     such access justified by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>
>>     Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of
>>     criteria and processes were devised, but it simply is not
>>     feasible for such a certification program to be developed in 3
>>     months. A certification program thrown together in a rush poses
>>     huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures, and a legal challenge
>>     to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals affected.
>>
>>     Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>
>>     Professor, School of Public Policy
>>
>>     Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/ad3973de/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 16:50:34 2018
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 14:50:34 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Stephanie

Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which you
supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now. I
suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!

I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
like to know our positoon before the intersessional.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
> submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
> happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
> more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a
> long time before this is over....
>
> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While option
> 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>
> cheers SP
> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>
> Thanks Rafik
>
> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the
> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>
> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement. It
> sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if Stephanie
> has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent
> in our messaging.
>
> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write
> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the
> table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>
> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act
> quickly within this weekend .
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> Cc:
>
> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>
>
>
> Principles
>
> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
> fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
> acceptable to the NCSG.
>
>
>
> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That is,
> the data that is collected and the data that are published must directly
> and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in Article 1 of
> its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that is based on
> the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
> indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
> currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
> is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
> wants it for any reason.
>
>
>
> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and not
> vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized governance of
> the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible and
> coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
> practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>
>
>
> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for
> access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
> community review and approval.
>
>
>
> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only
> viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to
> that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and
> resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would
> be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
> registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
> process for gaining access to additional information.
>
>
>
> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
> displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
> within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
> such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
> name of the registrant.
>
>
>
> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is completely
> unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor is, we
> believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified by the
> purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>
>
>
> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
> processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
> affected.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/62900357/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 17:27:15 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:27:15 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWp3hLwn_ZDTtSHXzG0qazFxF49=MvvOJaur2Wyqs8ntMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmdtx2CC6T7HzVEBN6dfBZJUMG_eS97mA-uSXOFwauc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWp3hLwn_ZDTtSHXzG0qazFxF49=MvvOJaur2Wyqs8ntMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWocfsOZzRADbixiYLshJ+3VRj0hzj3he4-bL5zc_vkWAQ@mail.gmail.com>

All,

I personally found that there is not so much to say on this comment but
have managed to quickly put some ideas, having in mind what the Council has
suggested as well.

I welcome your inputs and comments:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing

Regards,
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>)

2018-01-28 8:46 GMT-05:00 Ars?ne Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>:

> I have started a draft comment on the Proposed Incremental Changes to
> ICANN Meetings and hope to share it soon for your inputs.
>
> ------------------------
> **Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
> GPG: 523644A0
> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN'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>)
>
> 2018-01-28 1:17 GMT-05:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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
>>>    <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/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
>>>    <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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/559f4043/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Jan 28 17:29:54 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:29:54 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>

Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.? There is a 
lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).? WE need to know where the 
opposition is coming from.

The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the 
models.? There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another 
group's position.? Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.

Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in 
my view, not a thoughtful position to take.? I can attempt to reword it 
if you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.? We want 
layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in 
time will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.

I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.? I 
think they are well informed and realistic.? I think Option 3 was thrown 
out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.

let me know.....

cheers Steph

On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Hello Stephanie
>
> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which 
> you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it 
> now. I suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out 
> something better. You can always go down from highest protection to 
> layered access etc but for now and since we don't have much time to 
> reach consensus I think we can stick to model 3.? I wish you had sent 
> us your document sooner so that we could work on it. Also your 
> argument for not supporting model 3 in the document is not really 
> based on substance it's based on the fact that it won't get support in 
> the community. There is a May deadline. Community can come up with 
> consensus after the deadline on another leas protective model. ?but 
> ICANN org can't wait!
>
> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we 
> would like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have
>     been submitted in before I run for? the plane at 2 EDT...but that
>     may not happen.? The legal analysis will come next week, it is a
>     lot harder and more complex....but I want to get my questions on
>     the table.? It will be a long time before this is over....
>
>     We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view. While
>     option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>
>     cheers SP
>
>     On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>     Thanks Rafik
>>
>>     I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24?hours?until I read
>>     the comments currently?being drafted by?Stephanie.
>>
>>     To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this
>>     statement. It sounds logical to me and consistent with our
>>     principles. But if Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I?d
>>     like to make sure we?re being consistent in our messaging.
>>
>>     Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions,?I?ll
>>     write again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other
>>     statements being on the table, as we cannot miss this submission
>>     deadline.
>>
>>     Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>
>>     Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>     Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>
>>
>>     On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak
>>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     Hi all,
>>>
>>>     We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
>>>     submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need
>>>     act quickly within this weekend .
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>     From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
>>>     <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>>     Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>     Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>>>     To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>>     <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>>>     Cc:
>>>
>>>         I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position
>>>         on the 12 January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>>
>>>         Principles
>>>
>>>         Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on
>>>         three fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform
>>>         to all three is acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>
>>>         1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's
>>>         mission. That is, the data that is collected and the data
>>>         that are published must directly and demonstrably contribute
>>>         to ICANN's mission as defined in Article 1 of its new
>>>         bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that is
>>>         based on the way people happen to make use of data that can
>>>         be accessed indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact
>>>         that certain people currently use Whois for any purpose does
>>>         not mean that the purpose of Whois is to provide thick data
>>>         about the domain and its registrant to anyone who wants it
>>>         for any reason.
>>>
>>>         2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally
>>>         uniform and not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to
>>>         provide globalized governance of the DNS so that it would
>>>         continue to be globally compatible and coordinated. Any
>>>         solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
>>>         practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>
>>>         3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new
>>>         criteria for access can feasibly be created in the next 3
>>>         months. We would strongly resist throwing the community into
>>>         a hopeless rush to come up with entirely new policies,
>>>         standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>>>         we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not
>>>         subject to community review and approval.
>>>
>>>         Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is
>>>         the only viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data
>>>         publicly displayed to that which is required for maintaining
>>>         the stability, security and resiliency of the DNS. Model 3
>>>         could be applied across the board, and would be
>>>         presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the
>>>         registrar, registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies
>>>         on established legal due process for gaining access to
>>>         additional information.
>>>
>>>         There is room for discussion about how much data could be
>>>         publicly displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's
>>>         mission. E.g., it may be within ICANN's mission to include
>>>         additional data in the public record, such as an email
>>>         address for the technical contact and even possibly the name
>>>         of the registrant.
>>>
>>>         The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1
>>>         is completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third
>>>         party requestor is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor
>>>         does is such access justified by the purpose of Whois or
>>>         ICANN's mission.
>>>
>>>         Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of
>>>         criteria and processes were devised, but it simply is not
>>>         feasible for such a certification program to be developed in
>>>         3 months. A certification program thrown together in a rush
>>>         poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures, and a legal
>>>         challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>>>         affected.
>>>
>>>         Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>
>>>         Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>
>>>         Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is  <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> -- 
> Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/19f676d6/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 17:36:37 2018
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:36:37 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>

I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late
and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement
be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does
Eco model address my worry?

Farzaneh

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a lot
> to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the
> opposition is coming from.
>
> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the
> models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
> position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>
> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in
> my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it if
> you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want
> layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time
> will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>
> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I
> think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown
> out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>
> let me know.....
>
> cheers Steph
> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>
> Hello Stephanie
>
> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which you
> supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now. I
> suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
> better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
> etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
> think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
> so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
> in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
> that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
> Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
> protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!
>
> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
> like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
>> submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
>> happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
>> more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a
>> long time before this is over....
>>
>> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While option
>> 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>
>> cheers SP
>> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Rafik
>>
>> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the
>> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>>
>> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement. It
>> sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if Stephanie
>> has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent
>> in our messaging.
>>
>> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write
>> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the
>> table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>
>> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act
>> quickly within this weekend .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>> Cc:
>>
>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
>> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>
>>
>>
>> Principles
>>
>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>> fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
>> acceptable to the NCSG.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That
>> is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must
>> directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in
>> Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that
>> is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>> indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
>> currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
>> is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
>> wants it for any reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and not
>> vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized governance of
>> the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible and
>> coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
>> practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for
>> access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>> community review and approval.
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only
>> viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to
>> that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and
>> resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would
>> be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
>> registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>> process for gaining access to additional information.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
>> displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
>> within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
>> such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
>> name of the registrant.
>>
>>
>>
>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is completely
>> unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor is, we
>> believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified by the
>> purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>
>>
>>
>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
>> processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
>> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>> affected.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/5dbefe2a/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Jan 28 18:14:08 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:14:08 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am sorry I let you down.? To be frank, the discussion on the main list 
was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be 
trashed by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.? 
However, I have had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, 
which slowed me down enormously, and there was no room for error.

Here are a few compromise positions:

1.? I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different 
positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not 
go into it.

2.? I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the 
IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues successfully.

3.? I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these 
matters.? There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off 
of access for cyber investigators.? IF you have any ideas on how to 
square that circle, I am all ears.? It is a big problem....while I can 
be accused of caving in to a moderate position because I have been both 
a govt policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's 
office, I think you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience 
fighting off law enforcement in back rooms.? If we want to be taken 
seriously, we have to acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course 
their fault there is a problem, but that is another narrative....)

I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.? But 
if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3, 
please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the other 
day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into models. 
COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc are welcome.

SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, 
and our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.? Strategically, and 
bearing in mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an 
interim measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea, 
particularly when they have gone to the work and expense they have to 
produce an excellent proposal.

Have to go drop? the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA 
or tomorrow morning at breakfast?

cheers Steph

On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too 
> late and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law 
> Enforcement be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where 
> I am from. Does Eco model address my worry?
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well. There
>     is a lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).? WE need to
>     know where the opposition is coming from.
>
>     The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with
>     the models.? There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing
>     another group's position.? Their legal analysis is excellent, in
>     my view.
>
>     Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there
>     is, in my view, not a thoughtful position to take. I can attempt
>     to reword it if you point me to precisely what is sticking in your
>     throats.? We want layered access....a failure to support layered
>     access at this point in time will set us back years, we finally
>     have ICANN agreeing to it.
>
>     I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support
>     them.? I think they are well informed and realistic.? I think
>     Option 3 was thrown out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>
>     let me know.....
>
>     cheers Steph
>
>     On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>     Hello Stephanie
>>
>>     Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b
>>     which you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot
>>     support it now. I suggest going for the highest protection now
>>     until we work out something better. You can always go down from
>>     highest protection to layered access etc but for now and since we
>>     don't have much time to reach consensus I think we can stick to
>>     model 3.? I wish you had sent us your document sooner so that we
>>     could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
>>     in the document is not really based on substance it's based on
>>     the fact that it won't get support in the community. There is a
>>     May deadline. Community can come up with consensus after the
>>     deadline on another leas protective model. ?but ICANN org can't
>>     wait!
>>
>>     I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we
>>     would like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>
>>     On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin
>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>         I will try to get the revised comments on the models that
>>         have been submitted in before I run for? the plane at 2
>>         EDT...but that may not happen.? The legal analysis will come
>>         next week, it is a lot harder and more complex....but I want
>>         to get my questions on the table.? It will be a long time
>>         before this is over....
>>
>>         We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.
>>         While option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>
>>         cheers SP
>>
>>         On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>         Thanks Rafik
>>>
>>>         I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24?hours?until I
>>>         read the comments currently?being drafted by?Stephanie.
>>>
>>>         To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this
>>>         statement. It sounds logical to me and consistent with our
>>>         principles. But if Stephanie has a 15-page document coming
>>>         I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent in our messaging.
>>>
>>>         Of course, being so close to the final day for
>>>         submissions,?I?ll write again on-list tomorrow in the
>>>         absence of any other statements being on the table, as we
>>>         cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>
>>>         Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>
>>>         Best wishes, Ayden
>>>
>>>         Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak
>>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>         Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>         We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The
>>>>         deadline for submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the
>>>>         coming monday. We need act quickly within this weekend .
>>>>
>>>>         Best,
>>>>
>>>>         Rafik
>>>>
>>>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>         From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
>>>>         <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>>>         Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>>         Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
>>>>         models
>>>>         To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>>>>         Cc:
>>>>
>>>>             I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG
>>>>             position on the 12 January 2018 call for comments
>>>>             released by ICANN org.
>>>>
>>>>             Principles
>>>>
>>>>             Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based
>>>>             on three fundamental principles. No model that fails to
>>>>             conform to all three is acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>>
>>>>             1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to
>>>>             ICANN's mission. That is, the data that is collected
>>>>             and the data that are published must directly and
>>>>             demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined
>>>>             in Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any
>>>>             definition of Whois purpose that is based on the way
>>>>             people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>>>>             indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that
>>>>             certain people currently use Whois for any purpose does
>>>>             not mean that the purpose of Whois is to provide thick
>>>>             data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
>>>>             wants it for any reason.
>>>>
>>>>             2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be
>>>>             globally uniform and not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN
>>>>             was created to provide globalized governance of the DNS
>>>>             so that it would continue to be globally compatible and
>>>>             coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the
>>>>             policies and practices of Whois along jurisdictional
>>>>             lines is not desirable.
>>>>
>>>>             3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing
>>>>             new criteria for access can feasibly be created in the
>>>>             next 3 months. We would strongly resist throwing the
>>>>             community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>>>>             new policies, standards and practices involving tiered
>>>>             access to data, and we do not want ICANN staff to
>>>>             invent a policy that is not subject to community review
>>>>             and approval.
>>>>
>>>>             Based on these three principles, we believe that Model
>>>>             3 is the only viable option available. Model 3
>>>>             minimizes the data publicly displayed to that which is
>>>>             required for maintaining the stability, security and
>>>>             resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across
>>>>             the board, and would be presumptively legal regardless
>>>>             of which jurisdiction the registrar, registry or
>>>>             registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established
>>>>             legal due process for gaining access to additional
>>>>             information.
>>>>
>>>>             There is room for discussion about how much data could
>>>>             be publicly displayed under Model 3 consistent with
>>>>             ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be within ICANN's mission
>>>>             to include additional data in the public record, such
>>>>             as an email address for the technical contact and even
>>>>             possibly the name of the registrant.
>>>>
>>>>             The process of gaining access to additional data in
>>>>             Model 1 is completely unacceptable. Self-certification
>>>>             by any third party requestor is, we believe, not
>>>>             compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified
>>>>             by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>>
>>>>             Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set
>>>>             of criteria and processes were devised, but it simply
>>>>             is not feasible for such a certification program to be
>>>>             developed in 3 months. A certification program thrown
>>>>             together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor
>>>>             procedures, and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from
>>>>             DPAs or from individuals affected.
>>>>
>>>>             Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>
>>>>             Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>
>>>>             Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is  <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc  <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Farzaneh
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/a9da7ed5/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 18:27:30 2018
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 16:27:30 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvBtTcC3P2=UMcsbn2oS0=QbFqSKRcE2kO2x+ZnHtiPRbA@mail.gmail.com>

I won't be  in LA until wed. Pc has to decide until tmrw the latest. I
acknowledge all that. Expertise etc etc. But it will be easier to go for a
more protective approach and then to a layered approach. The other way
round is more difficult. I want us to think about this more.

And my question about ECO model went unanswered.

I want Tatiana to also weigh  in she has been working with law enforcement
as well and knows a lot. She is traveling so I guess there will be a delay.


But Stephanie, you need to also acknowledge that the law enforcement you
dealt with is a different kind. Law enforcement in the region I come from
is more scary than protective. The last thing I can fathom is that they get
empowered to ask for people's data. Not all of them are bad. But in systems
where blasphemy is a crime punished with capital punishment we have to be
careful with the access of law enforcement to data.  Have you considered
this in the equation? Or does this not matter? I'm all for cost benefit
analysis so if you have and you think still the layered approach can
protect and bring more benefit then well I am all ears.

Flying to DC now.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:14 AM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I am sorry I let you down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main list
> was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be trashed
> by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.  However, I have
> had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, which slowed me down
> enormously, and there was no room for error.
>
> Here are a few compromise positions:
>
> 1.  I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different positions,
> the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not go into it.
>
> 2.  I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the
> IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues successfully.
>
> 3.  I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these
> matters.  There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off of
> access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how to square
> that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big problem....while I can be accused
> of caving in to a moderate position because I have been both a govt
> policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I
> think you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting off law
> enforcement in back rooms.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to
> acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course their fault there is a
> problem, but that is another narrative....)
>
> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  But
> if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3,
> please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the other
> day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into models.
> COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc are welcome.
>
> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, and
> our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and bearing in
> mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an interim
> measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea, particularly
> when they have gone to the work and expense they have to produce an
> excellent proposal.
>
> Have to go drop  the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA
> or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>
> cheers Steph
> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>
> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late
> and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement
> be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does
> Eco model address my worry?
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a
>> lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the
>> opposition is coming from.
>>
>> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the
>> models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
>> position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>>
>> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in
>> my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it if
>> you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want
>> layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time
>> will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>
>> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I
>> think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown
>> out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>>
>> let me know.....
>>
>> cheers Steph
>> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>> Hello Stephanie
>>
>> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which
>> you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now.
>> I suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
>> better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
>> etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
>> think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
>> so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
>> in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
>> that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
>> Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
>> protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!
>>
>> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
>> like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
>>> submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
>>> happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
>>> more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a
>>> long time before this is over....
>>>
>>> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While
>>> option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>
>>> cheers SP
>>> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Rafik
>>>
>>> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the
>>> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>>>
>>> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement. It
>>> sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if Stephanie
>>> has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent
>>> in our messaging.
>>>
>>> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write
>>> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the
>>> table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>
>>> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>
>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
>>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act
>>> quickly within this weekend .
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>> Cc:
>>>
>>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
>>> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Principles
>>>
>>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>>> fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
>>> acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That
>>> is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must
>>> directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in
>>> Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that
>>> is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>>> indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
>>> currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
>>> is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
>>> wants it for any reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and
>>> not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized
>>> governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible
>>> and coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
>>> practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for
>>> access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>>> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>>> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>>> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>>> community review and approval.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only
>>> viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to
>>> that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and
>>> resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would
>>> be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
>>> registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>>> process for gaining access to additional information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
>>> displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
>>> within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
>>> such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
>>> name of the registrant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is
>>> completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor
>>> is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified
>>> by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
>>> processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>>> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
>>> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>>> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>>> affected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>
>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/13623725/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 18:37:33 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:37:33 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvBtTcC3P2=UMcsbn2oS0=QbFqSKRcE2kO2x+ZnHtiPRbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvBtTcC3P2=UMcsbn2oS0=QbFqSKRcE2kO2x+ZnHtiPRbA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWo_oRtMM3tS8ksGD8xFqgM5hGQG=UY298PP7WpxFS6=Xg@mail.gmail.com>

It is a shame time is flying yet we don't have a position here from our
matter experts. And I believe i come from the same context as Farzaneh when
it is about law enforcement and the way they can use the power they are
granted.

Since this is clearly not my area of expertise, i will wait for the final
document from Stephanie and then see what to do comparing it with what
Milton offered. Milton's points are clear and straight forward to allow an
easy understanding of what we can take and hope Stephanie will also be able
to make us bullet points on what she is offering (as a summary of the
document she is working on)

------------------------
**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>)

2018-01-28 8:27 GMT-08:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:

> I won't be  in LA until wed. Pc has to decide until tmrw the latest. I
> acknowledge all that. Expertise etc etc. But it will be easier to go for a
> more protective approach and then to a layered approach. The other way
> round is more difficult. I want us to think about this more.
>
> And my question about ECO model went unanswered.
>
> I want Tatiana to also weigh  in she has been working with law enforcement
> as well and knows a lot. She is traveling so I guess there will be a delay.
>
>
> But Stephanie, you need to also acknowledge that the law enforcement you
> dealt with is a different kind. Law enforcement in the region I come from
> is more scary than protective. The last thing I can fathom is that they get
> empowered to ask for people's data. Not all of them are bad. But in systems
> where blasphemy is a crime punished with capital punishment we have to be
> careful with the access of law enforcement to data.  Have you considered
> this in the equation? Or does this not matter? I'm all for cost benefit
> analysis so if you have and you think still the layered approach can
> protect and bring more benefit then well I am all ears.
>
> Flying to DC now.
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:14 AM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> I am sorry I let you down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main list
>> was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be trashed
>> by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.  However, I have
>> had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, which slowed me down
>> enormously, and there was no room for error.
>>
>> Here are a few compromise positions:
>>
>> 1.  I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different
>> positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not go
>> into it.
>>
>> 2.  I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the
>> IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues successfully.
>>
>> 3.  I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these
>> matters.  There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off of
>> access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how to square
>> that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big problem....while I can be accused
>> of caving in to a moderate position because I have been both a govt
>> policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I
>> think you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting off law
>> enforcement in back rooms.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to
>> acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course their fault there is a
>> problem, but that is another narrative....)
>>
>> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  But
>> if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3,
>> please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the other
>> day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into models.
>> COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc are welcome.
>>
>> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, and
>> our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and bearing in
>> mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an interim
>> measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea, particularly
>> when they have gone to the work and expense they have to produce an
>> excellent proposal.
>>
>> Have to go drop  the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA
>> or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>>
>> cheers Steph
>> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late
>> and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement
>> be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does
>> Eco model address my worry?
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a
>>> lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the
>>> opposition is coming from.
>>>
>>> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the
>>> models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
>>> position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in
>>> my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it if
>>> you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want
>>> layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time
>>> will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>>
>>> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I
>>> think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown
>>> out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>>>
>>> let me know.....
>>>
>>> cheers Steph
>>> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Stephanie
>>>
>>> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which
>>> you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now.
>>> I suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
>>> better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
>>> etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
>>> think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
>>> so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
>>> in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
>>> that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
>>> Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
>>> protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!
>>>
>>> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
>>> like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
>>> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
>>>> submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
>>>> happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
>>>> more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a
>>>> long time before this is over....
>>>>
>>>> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While
>>>> option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>>
>>>> cheers SP
>>>> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Rafik
>>>>
>>>> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the
>>>> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement.
>>>> It sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if
>>>> Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being
>>>> consistent in our messaging.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write
>>>> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the
>>>> table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
>>>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act
>>>> quickly within this weekend .
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
>>>> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Principles
>>>>
>>>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>>>> fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
>>>> acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That
>>>> is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must
>>>> directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in
>>>> Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that
>>>> is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>>>> indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
>>>> currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
>>>> is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
>>>> wants it for any reason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and
>>>> not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized
>>>> governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible
>>>> and coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
>>>> practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria
>>>> for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>>>> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>>>> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>>>> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>>>> community review and approval.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only
>>>> viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to
>>>> that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and
>>>> resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would
>>>> be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
>>>> registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>>>> process for gaining access to additional information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
>>>> displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
>>>> within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
>>>> such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
>>>> name of the registrant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is
>>>> completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor
>>>> is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified
>>>> by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
>>>> processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>>>> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
>>>> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>>>> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>>>> affected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>
>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>>
>> --
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/12c24202/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 18:55:41 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 01:55:41 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

while I checked the 3 models, I am not familiar with the eco model or
comment and so making any judgment hard. is it similar to one of the models
or something totally different proposal?
maybe as context, we should recall that those models are supposed to be
interim solutions. One risk with model 2b or a similar (eco?) is what
French calls "le temporaire qui dure", a lasting temporary. It means having
a workaround that will become de facto the solution with all its drawbacks
and we won't have a real say in the process such accreditation or
certification (we can learn from the current discussion on implementing of
PPSAI and how staff views differ from the policy).

let's think in practical fashion here:
- we got a deadline and need to submit a comment
- the discussion is still continuing e.g. webinar this week and beyond
- there are calls for extension by BC and IPC because they want to propose
more models beyond the 3 tabled.

I guess one approach is to have the comment saying that the model 3 to meet
the current deadline because its restrictions is a more safe solution till
we move for a restrictive layered option (2b or eco model) after a real
community involvement and discussion. Having a model 3 used is a real
ncentive for everyone to work on a long time solution acknowledging all
concerns from the different parties instead of tricking us to accept an
ill-designed option. the document made by Stephanie is a starting point for
us to work on the details in coming months.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-29 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> I am sorry I let you down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main list
> was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be trashed
> by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.  However, I have
> had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, which slowed me down
> enormously, and there was no room for error.
>
> Here are a few compromise positions:
>
> 1.  I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different positions,
> the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not go into it.
>
> 2.  I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the
> IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues successfully.
>
> 3.  I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these
> matters.  There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off of
> access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how to square
> that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big problem....while I can be accused
> of caving in to a moderate position because I have been both a govt
> policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I
> think you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting off law
> enforcement in back rooms.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to
> acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course their fault there is a
> problem, but that is another narrative....)
>
> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  But
> if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3,
> please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the other
> day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into models.
> COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc are welcome.
>
> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, and
> our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and bearing in
> mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an interim
> measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea, particularly
> when they have gone to the work and expense they have to produce an
> excellent proposal.
>
> Have to go drop  the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA
> or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>
> cheers Steph
> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>
> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late
> and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement
> be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does
> Eco model address my worry?
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a
>> lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the
>> opposition is coming from.
>>
>> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the
>> models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
>> position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>>
>> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in
>> my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it if
>> you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want
>> layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time
>> will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>
>> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I
>> think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown
>> out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>>
>> let me know.....
>>
>> cheers Steph
>> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>> Hello Stephanie
>>
>> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which
>> you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now.
>> I suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
>> better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
>> etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
>> think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
>> so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
>> in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
>> that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
>> Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
>> protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!
>>
>> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
>> like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
>>> submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
>>> happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
>>> more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a
>>> long time before this is over....
>>>
>>> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While
>>> option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>
>>> cheers SP
>>> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Rafik
>>>
>>> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the
>>> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>>>
>>> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement. It
>>> sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if Stephanie
>>> has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent
>>> in our messaging.
>>>
>>> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write
>>> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the
>>> table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>
>>> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>
>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
>>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act
>>> quickly within this weekend .
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>> Cc:
>>>
>>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
>>> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Principles
>>>
>>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>>> fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
>>> acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That
>>> is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must
>>> directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in
>>> Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that
>>> is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>>> indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
>>> currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
>>> is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
>>> wants it for any reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and
>>> not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized
>>> governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible
>>> and coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
>>> practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for
>>> access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>>> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>>> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>>> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>>> community review and approval.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only
>>> viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to
>>> that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and
>>> resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would
>>> be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
>>> registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>>> process for gaining access to additional information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
>>> displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
>>> within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
>>> such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
>>> name of the registrant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is
>>> completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor
>>> is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified
>>> by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
>>> processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>>> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
>>> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>>> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>>> affected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>
>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/1572356e/attachment.htm>

From avri at apc.org  Sun Jan 28 22:35:11 2018
From: avri at apc.org (avri doria)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:35:11 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68e80d5a-c263-723d-4a51-e5641e7c5811@apc.org>

(observer)


On 28-Jan-18 11:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> I am not familiar with the eco model

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-cm3-eco-proposal-details-11jan18-en.pdf



From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Sun Jan 28 23:48:47 2018
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:48:47 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <68e80d5a-c263-723d-4a51-e5641e7c5811@apc.org>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <68e80d5a-c263-723d-4a51-e5641e7c5811@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvD=V9mOp_ikOS4mwOkzwBTPibRJ9S6t_yqnNFew+epefg@mail.gmail.com>

So i just paste this from the ECO model here:

[The legal basis for disclosure to law enforcement agencies is limited to
authorities acting on the grounds of EU law or national laws of EU member
states.]

What does this mean? So only EU laws and Eu national laws can be used by
law enforcement globally to have access to data?

Then we have this:
[It is further proposed that certification and handling of requests can be
centralized in a Trusted Data Clearinghouse to avoid duplicate efforts, to
take off the burden of organizational, proceduaral and financial efforts
off the controllers and requesters, to ensure consistency of
decision-making and to make the system ?customer friendly?.]


A trusted data clearing house. Don't know how to feel about  that. They are
also in favor of thick whois data and think it should continue. I don't
think thick whois is justified. I don't think we thought that when it was
approved either.


with regards to international data transfer to non eu law enforcement
 please look at page 67

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-cm3-eco-domain-industry-playbook-11jan18-en.pdf

[International Transfer of Whois Data to Non-EU Law Enforcement Agencies
According to Directive (EU) 2016/680, European Member States should ensure
that a transfer by European law enforcement agencies to a third country or
to an international organisation takes place only if necessary for the
prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or
the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and
the prevention of threats to public security, and that the controller in
the third country or international organisation is a competent authority as
well. Similar to the requirements for international data transfer according
to the G....]


They also say they have not consulted with data protection authorities. If
I am not mistaken.

ECO model could be great. I can't analyze it now I dont agree with some
things they say I don't understand other things.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:35 PM avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:

> (observer)
>
>
> On 28-Jan-18 11:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > I am not familiar with the eco model
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-cm3-eco-proposal-details-11jan18-en.pdf
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180128/1ada4237/attachment.htm>

From milton at gatech.edu  Mon Jan 29 05:24:43 2018
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 03:24:43 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Whois compliance models, and the confusion of the PC
Message-ID: <CY1PR0701MB127487F6A958986BE80CC48FA1E50@CY1PR0701MB1274.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

MM here reporting from the further reaches of the policy committee.
So here as far as I can tell is the only response I have seen on the debate between models 3 and 2b in the PC:

>I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
>submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
>happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
>more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be
>a long time before this is over....
>
>We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While
>option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
WHY is model 3 "unworkable?" No  explanation provided. In fact this is the inverse of the truth: Model 2b is literally and provably unworkable because it requires ICANN to set up a system of certification in a matter of 3 months, which everyone should be able to see is unworkable. Insofar as such an "interim" solution gets done in such an unworkably short period of time, it will only happen if it is dictated unilaterally by ICANN staff.

Folks, we have spent the last _15 years_ trying to get something like model 3 as a privacy-respecting approach to Whois, and now that it is within our grasp, I cannot believe that people we thought were privacy advocates are telling us it is "unworkable." WTF? Why is anyone in NCSG trying to get us trapped into an interim solution that will be dictated behind the scenes by special interests and will allow trademark lawyers and LEAs all kinds of loopholes to get access to Whois data that they shouldn't have? This "interim" solution will almost certainly become a permanent one. If we have learned anything about how icANN works.

Any sincere believers in model 2b should accept reality and say let's do Model 3 in the short term and then work out a viable certification system long term.

Right now, let us cohere behind model 3 it is both the right solution and our strongest bargaining position heading into the future.

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/f1c8e645/attachment.htm>

From t.tropina at mpicc.de  Mon Jan 29 18:52:16 2018
From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 08:52:16 -0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <974ba9a0-7703-d0f9-a575-f6226885e381@mpicc.de>

All,

I support Rafik's approach.

1) we can submit the comment supporting the model 3.

2) we can tweak 2b and look more thoroughly at eco meanwhile and clarify
some things that are not clear there for me yet - like LEA access and
some other.

3) as we have to be rational, we can bargain further with a mix of 3 and
2b, if needed.

Cheers,

Tanya


On 28/01/18 08:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while I checked the 3 models, I am not familiar with the eco model or
> comment and so making any judgment hard. is it similar to one of the
> models or something totally different proposal?
> maybe as context, we should recall that those models are supposed to
> be interim solutions. One risk with model 2b or a similar (eco?) is
> what French?calls "le temporaire?qui dure", a lasting temporary. It
> means having a workaround that will become de facto the solution with
> all its drawbacks and we won't have a real say in the process such
> accreditation or certification (we can learn from the current
> discussion on implementing of PPSAI and how staff views differ from
> the policy).
>
> let's think in practical fashion here:
> - we got a deadline and need to submit a comment
> - the discussion is still continuing e.g. webinar this week and beyond
> - there are calls for extension?by BC and IPC because they want to
> propose more models beyond the 3 tabled.
>
> I guess one approach is to have the comment saying that the model 3 to
> meet the current deadline because its restrictions is a more
> safe?solution till we move for a restrictive layered option (2b or eco
> model) after a real community involvement and discussion. Having a
> model 3 used is a real ncentive for everyone to work on a long time
> solution acknowledging all concerns from the different parties instead
> of tricking us to accept an ill-designed option. the document made by
> Stephanie is a starting point for us to work on the details in coming
> months.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-29 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>
>     I am sorry I let you down.? To be frank, the discussion on the
>     main list was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out
>     there to be trashed by folks not following these matters was
>     pretty minimal.? However, I have had a complete meltdown with my
>     computer and my ISP, which slowed me down enormously, and there
>     was no room for error.
>
>     Here are a few compromise positions:
>
>     1.? I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different
>     positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but
>     did not go into it.
>
>     2.? I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement
>     ask, the IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those
>     issues successfully.
>
>     3.? I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these
>     matters.? There will be no support from them for a wholesale
>     cutting off of access for cyber investigators.? IF you have any
>     ideas on how to square that circle, I am all ears.? It is a big
>     problem....while I can be accused of caving in to a moderate
>     position because I have been both a govt policy/legislative wonk
>     and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I think you have
>     to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting off law
>     enforcement in back rooms.? If we want to be taken seriously, we
>     have to acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course their
>     fault there is a problem, but that is another narrative....)
>
>     I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in
>     NCSG.? But if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether
>     it is 2b or 3, please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC
>     webinar the other day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply
>     pulled them into models. COmments on all aspects raised,
>     suggestions of other models etc are welcome.
>
>     SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for
>     that, and our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.?
>     Strategically, and bearing in mind we still have years of pdps
>     ahead of us and this is an interim measure, supporting the
>     registrars seems to me a good idea, particularly when they have
>     gone to the work and expense they have to produce an excellent
>     proposal.
>
>     Have to go drop? the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening
>     in LA or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>
>     cheers Steph
>
>     On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>     I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way
>>     too late and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't
>>     want Law Enforcement be viewed as legitimate force globally and
>>     you know where I am from. Does Eco model address my worry?
>>
>>     Farzaneh
>>
>>     On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin
>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>         Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.?
>>         There is a lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).? WE
>>         need to know where the opposition is coming from.
>>
>>         The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal
>>         with the models.? There is absolutely nothing wrong with
>>         endorsing another group's position.? Their legal analysis is
>>         excellent, in my view.
>>
>>         Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out
>>         there is, in my view, not a thoughtful position to take.? I
>>         can attempt to reword it if you point me to precisely what is
>>         sticking in your throats.? We want layered access....a
>>         failure to support layered access at this point in time will
>>         set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>
>>         I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support
>>         them.? I think they are well informed and realistic.? I think
>>         Option 3 was thrown out there as a poison pill and I am not
>>         taking it.
>>
>>         let me know.....
>>
>>         cheers Steph
>>
>>         On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>         Hello Stephanie?
>>>
>>>         Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it
>>>         model 2b which you supported in the doc you sent us? If not
>>>         then we cannot support it now. I suggest going for the
>>>         highest protection now until we work out something better.
>>>         You can always go down from highest protection to layered
>>>         access etc but for now and since we don't have much time to
>>>         reach consensus I think we can stick to model 3.? I wish you
>>>         had sent us your document sooner so that we could work on
>>>         it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3 in the
>>>         document is not really based on substance it's based on the
>>>         fact that it won't get support in the community. There is a
>>>         May deadline. Community can come up with consensus after the
>>>         deadline on another leas protective model. ?but ICANN org
>>>         can't wait!?
>>>
>>>         I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow
>>>         and we would like to know our positoon before the
>>>         intersessional.
>>>
>>>         On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin
>>>         <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             I will try to get the revised comments on the models
>>>             that have been submitted in before I run for? the plane
>>>             at 2 EDT...but that may not happen.? The legal analysis
>>>             will come next week, it is a lot harder and more
>>>             complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.?
>>>             It will be a long time before this is over....
>>>
>>>             We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my
>>>             view.? While option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>
>>>             cheers SP
>>>
>>>             On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>             Thanks Rafik
>>>>
>>>>             I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for
>>>>             24?hours?until I read the comments currently?being
>>>>             drafted by?Stephanie.??
>>>>
>>>>             To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse
>>>>             this statement. It sounds logical to me and consistent
>>>>             with our principles. But if Stephanie has a 15-page
>>>>             document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being
>>>>             consistent in our messaging.?
>>>>
>>>>             Of course, being so close to the final day for
>>>>             submissions,?I?ll write again on-list tomorrow in the
>>>>             absence of any other statements being on the table, as
>>>>             we cannot miss this submission deadline.?
>>>>
>>>>             Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.?
>>>>
>>>>             Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>             Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak
>>>>             <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>             <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>             Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>             We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The
>>>>>             deadline for submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the
>>>>>             coming monday. We need act quickly within this weekend .
>>>>>
>>>>>             Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>             Rafik?
>>>>>
>>>>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>             From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
>>>>>             <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>>>>             Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>>>             Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois
>>>>>             compliance models
>>>>>             To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>>>>             <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>>>>>             Cc:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG
>>>>>                 position on the 12 January 2018 call for comments
>>>>>                 released by ICANN org.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Principles
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are
>>>>>                 based on three fundamental principles. No model
>>>>>                 that fails to conform to all three is acceptable
>>>>>                 to the NCSG.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to
>>>>>                 ICANN's mission. That is, the data that is
>>>>>                 collected and the data that are published must
>>>>>                 directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's
>>>>>                 mission as defined in Article 1 of its new bylaws.
>>>>>                 We reject any definition of Whois purpose that is
>>>>>                 based on the way people happen to make use of data
>>>>>                 that can be accessed indiscriminately in a public
>>>>>                 directory. The fact that certain people currently
>>>>>                 use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the
>>>>>                 purpose of Whois is to provide thick data about
>>>>>                 the domain and its registrant to anyone who wants
>>>>>                 it for any reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be
>>>>>                 globally uniform and not vary by jurisdiction.
>>>>>                 ICANN was created to provide globalized governance
>>>>>                 of the DNS so that it would continue to be
>>>>>                 globally compatible and coordinated. Any solution
>>>>>                 that involves fragmenting the policies and
>>>>>                 practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is
>>>>>                 not desirable.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 3. No tiered access solution that involves
>>>>>                 establishing new criteria for access can feasibly
>>>>>                 be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>>>>>                 resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush
>>>>>                 to come up with entirely new policies, standards
>>>>>                 and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>>>>>                 we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that
>>>>>                 is not subject to community review and approval.?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Based on these three principles, we believe that
>>>>>                 Model 3 is the only viable option available. Model
>>>>>                 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to that
>>>>>                 which is required for maintaining the stability,
>>>>>                 security and resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could
>>>>>                 be applied across the board, and would be
>>>>>                 presumptively legal regardless of which
>>>>>                 jurisdiction the registrar, registry or registrant
>>>>>                 are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal
>>>>>                 due process for gaining access to additional
>>>>>                 information.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 There is room for discussion about how much data
>>>>>                 could be publicly displayed under Model 3
>>>>>                 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
>>>>>                 within ICANN's mission to include additional data
>>>>>                 in the public record, such as an email address for
>>>>>                 the technical contact and even possibly the name
>>>>>                 of the registrant.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 The process of gaining access to additional data
>>>>>                 in Model 1 is completely unacceptable.
>>>>>                 Self-certification by any third party requestor
>>>>>                 is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does
>>>>>                 is such access justified by the purpose of Whois
>>>>>                 or ICANN's mission.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an
>>>>>                 suitable set of criteria and processes were
>>>>>                 devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>>>>>                 certification program to be developed in 3 months.
>>>>>                 A certification program thrown together in a rush
>>>>>                 poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>>>>>                 and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs
>>>>>                 or from individuals affected.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>             NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>             https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>             NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>             https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>>>         -- 
>>>         Farzaneh
>>
>>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/1b371708/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Mon Jan 29 18:58:39 2018
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:58:39 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <974ba9a0-7703-d0f9-a575-f6226885e381@mpicc.de>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <974ba9a0-7703-d0f9-a575-f6226885e381@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <542133DC-31F3-4EB8-94F8-DABBE34DB432@gmail.com>

I support this approach.

Mart?n

> On 29 Jan 2018, at 13:52, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> I support Rafik's approach.
> 
> 1) we can submit the comment supporting the model 3.
> 
> 2) we can tweak 2b and look more thoroughly at eco meanwhile and clarify some things that are not clear there for me yet - like LEA access and some other. 
> 3) as we have to be rational, we can bargain further with a mix of 3 and 2b, if needed. 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tanya 
> 
> On 28/01/18 08:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> while I checked the 3 models, I am not familiar with the eco model or comment and so making any judgment hard. is it similar to one of the models or something totally different proposal?
>> maybe as context, we should recall that those models are supposed to be interim solutions. One risk with model 2b or a similar (eco?) is what French calls "le temporaire qui dure", a lasting temporary. It means having a workaround that will become de facto the solution with all its drawbacks and we won't have a real say in the process such accreditation or certification (we can learn from the current discussion on implementing of PPSAI and how staff views differ from the policy).
>> 
>> let's think in practical fashion here:
>> - we got a deadline and need to submit a comment
>> - the discussion is still continuing e.g. webinar this week and beyond
>> - there are calls for extension by BC and IPC because they want to propose more models beyond the 3 tabled.
>> 
>> I guess one approach is to have the comment saying that the model 3 to meet the current deadline because its restrictions is a more safe solution till we move for a restrictive layered option (2b or eco model) after a real community involvement and discussion. Having a model 3 used is a real ncentive for everyone to work on a long time solution acknowledging all concerns from the different parties instead of tricking us to accept an ill-designed option. the document made by Stephanie is a starting point for us to work on the details in coming months.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2018-01-29 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>> I am sorry I let you down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main list was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be trashed by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.  However, I have had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, which slowed me down enormously, and there was no room for error.
>> 
>> Here are a few compromise positions:
>> 
>> 1.  I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not go into it.
>> 
>> 2.  I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues successfully.
>> 
>> 3.  I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these matters.  There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off of access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how to square that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big problem....while I can be accused of caving in to a moderate position because I have been both a govt policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I think you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting off law enforcement in back rooms.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course their fault there is a problem, but that is another narrative....)
>> 
>> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  But if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3, please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the other day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into models. COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc are welcome.
>> 
>> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, and our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and bearing in mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an interim measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea, particularly when they have gone to the work and expense they have to produce an excellent proposal.
>> 
>> Have to go drop  the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>> 
>> cheers Steph
>> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does Eco model address my worry?
>>> 
>>> Farzaneh
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the opposition is coming from.
>>> 
>>> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>>> 
>>> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it if you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>>> 
>>> let me know.....
>>> 
>>> cheers Steph
>>> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>> Hello Stephanie 
>>>> 
>>>> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now. I suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3 in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline. Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait! 
>>>> 
>>>> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a long time before this is over....
>>>> 
>>>> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>> 
>>>> cheers SP
>>>> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement. It sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent in our messaging. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act quickly within this weekend .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
>>>>>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> 
>>>>>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM 
>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models 
>>>>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>> 
>>>>>> Cc: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12 January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> Principles
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who wants it for any reason.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible and coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to community review and approval. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar, registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due process for gaining access to additional information.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record, such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the name of the registrant.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures, and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals affected.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Farzaneh
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/f551eeda/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Mon Jan 29 19:02:45 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:02:45 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <542133DC-31F3-4EB8-94F8-DABBE34DB432@gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <974ba9a0-7703-d0f9-a575-f6226885e381@mpicc.de>
 <542133DC-31F3-4EB8-94F8-DABBE34DB432@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWrgOmcuH7E0hdvu7MgA3Kr+uCpgJ_zXZHn7RWMDYDWw2Q@mail.gmail.com>

Good move

------------------------
**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>)

2018-01-29 8:58 GMT-08:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>:

> I support this approach.
>
> Mart?n
>
>
> On 29 Jan 2018, at 13:52, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I support Rafik's approach.
>
> 1) we can submit the comment supporting the model 3.
>
> 2) we can tweak 2b and look more thoroughly at eco meanwhile and clarify
> some things that are not clear there for me yet - like LEA access and some
> other.
>
> 3) as we have to be rational, we can bargain further with a mix of 3 and
> 2b, if needed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 28/01/18 08:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> while I checked the 3 models, I am not familiar with the eco model or
> comment and so making any judgment hard. is it similar to one of the models
> or something totally different proposal?
> maybe as context, we should recall that those models are supposed to be
> interim solutions. One risk with model 2b or a similar (eco?) is what
> French calls "le temporaire qui dure", a lasting temporary. It means having
> a workaround that will become de facto the solution with all its drawbacks
> and we won't have a real say in the process such accreditation or
> certification (we can learn from the current discussion on implementing of
> PPSAI and how staff views differ from the policy).
>
> let's think in practical fashion here:
> - we got a deadline and need to submit a comment
> - the discussion is still continuing e.g. webinar this week and beyond
> - there are calls for extension by BC and IPC because they want to propose
> more models beyond the 3 tabled.
>
> I guess one approach is to have the comment saying that the model 3 to
> meet the current deadline because its restrictions is a more safe solution
> till we move for a restrictive layered option (2b or eco model) after a
> real community involvement and discussion. Having a model 3 used is a real
> ncentive for everyone to work on a long time solution acknowledging all
> concerns from the different parties instead of tricking us to accept an
> ill-designed option. the document made by Stephanie is a starting point for
> us to work on the details in coming months.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-29 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca>:
>
>> I am sorry I let you down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main list
>> was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be trashed
>> by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.  However, I have
>> had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, which slowed me down
>> enormously, and there was no room for error.
>>
>> Here are a few compromise positions:
>>
>> 1.  I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different
>> positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not go
>> into it.
>>
>> 2.  I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the
>> IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues successfully.
>>
>> 3.  I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these
>> matters.  There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off of
>> access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how to square
>> that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big problem....while I can be accused
>> of caving in to a moderate position because I have been both a govt
>> policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I
>> think you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting off law
>> enforcement in back rooms.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to
>> acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course their fault there is a
>> problem, but that is another narrative....)
>>
>> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  But
>> if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3,
>> please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the other
>> day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into models.
>> COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc are welcome.
>>
>> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, and
>> our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and bearing in
>> mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an interim
>> measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea, particularly
>> when they have gone to the work and expense they have to produce an
>> excellent proposal.
>>
>> Have to go drop  the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA
>> or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>>
>> cheers Steph
>> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late
>> and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement
>> be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does
>> Eco model address my worry?
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a
>>> lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the
>>> opposition is coming from.
>>>
>>> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the
>>> models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
>>> position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in
>>> my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it if
>>> you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want
>>> layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time
>>> will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>>
>>> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I
>>> think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown
>>> out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>>>
>>> let me know.....
>>>
>>> cheers Steph
>>> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Stephanie
>>>
>>> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which
>>> you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now.
>>> I suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
>>> better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
>>> etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
>>> think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
>>> so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
>>> in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
>>> that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
>>> Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
>>> protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!
>>>
>>> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
>>> like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <
>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
>>>> submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
>>>> happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
>>>> more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a
>>>> long time before this is over....
>>>>
>>>> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While
>>>> option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>>
>>>> cheers SP
>>>> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Rafik
>>>>
>>>> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the
>>>> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement.
>>>> It sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if
>>>> Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being
>>>> consistent in our messaging.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write
>>>> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the
>>>> table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
>>>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act
>>>> quickly within this weekend .
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
>>>> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Principles
>>>>
>>>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>>>> fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
>>>> acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That
>>>> is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must
>>>> directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in
>>>> Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that
>>>> is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>>>> indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
>>>> currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
>>>> is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
>>>> wants it for any reason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and
>>>> not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized
>>>> governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible
>>>> and coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
>>>> practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria
>>>> for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>>>> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>>>> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>>>> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>>>> community review and approval.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only
>>>> viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to
>>>> that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and
>>>> resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would
>>>> be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
>>>> registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>>>> process for gaining access to additional information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
>>>> displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
>>>> within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
>>>> such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
>>>> name of the registrant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is
>>>> completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor
>>>> is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified
>>>> by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
>>>> processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>>>> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
>>>> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>>>> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>>>> affected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>
>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/34645d2c/attachment.htm>

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Mon Jan 29 19:52:49 2018
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:52:49 -0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <1f3c016c-47a1-6dfa-3b53-004952885ad3@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All,

I would like to support Stephanie's comments and I am sorry her computer 
broke down at such a critical moment. But I do want to share that her 
comments are brilliant and well-reasoned -- and walk us through the 
complexities of a very difficult area. As befits the co-author of the 
Canadian data protection law, her analysis of the requirements of GDPR 
and the short-comings of the models is important and badly needed. It's 
a "real-world" analysis for a situation we have in front of us - ICANN 
and real companies in the registration industry trying to comply with 
the GDPR and data protection laws around the world. I fully endorsing 
adopting as much as possible from her comments.

Also safe travels to LA!

Best regards, Kathy


On 1/28/2018 8:14 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I am sorry I let you down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main 
> list was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to 
> be trashed by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.  
> However, I have had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, 
> which slowed me down enormously, and there was no room for error.
>
> Here are a few compromise positions:
>
> 1.  I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different 
> positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did 
> not go into it.
>
> 2.  I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, 
> the IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues 
> successfully.
>
> 3.  I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these 
> matters. There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting 
> off of access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how 
> to square that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big problem....while I 
> can be accused of caving in to a moderate position because I have been 
> both a govt policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy 
> commissioner's office, I think you have to acknowledge I have decades 
> of experience fighting off law enforcement in back rooms.  If we want 
> to be taken seriously, we have to acknowledge there is a problem. (it 
> is of course their fault there is a problem, but that is another 
> narrative....)
>
> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  
> But if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 
> 3, please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the 
> other day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into 
> models. COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models 
> etc are welcome.
>
> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, 
> and our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and 
> bearing in mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an 
> interim measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea, 
> particularly when they have gone to the work and expense they have to 
> produce an excellent proposal.
>
> Have to go drop  the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in 
> LA or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>
> cheers Steph
>
> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too 
>> late and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law 
>> Enforcement be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where 
>> I am from. Does Eco model address my worry?
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>     Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well. There
>>     is a lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to
>>     know where the opposition is coming from.
>>
>>     The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with
>>     the models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing
>>     another group's position. Their legal analysis is excellent, in
>>     my view.
>>
>>     Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there
>>     is, in my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt
>>     to reword it if you point me to precisely what is sticking in
>>     your throats.  We want layered access....a failure to support
>>     layered access at this point in time will set us back years, we
>>     finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>
>>     I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support
>>     them.  I think they are well informed and realistic.  I think
>>     Option 3 was thrown out there as a poison pill and I am not
>>     taking it.
>>
>>     let me know.....
>>
>>     cheers Steph
>>
>>     On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>     Hello Stephanie
>>>
>>>     Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b
>>>     which you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we
>>>     cannot support it now. I suggest going for the highest
>>>     protection now until we work out something better. You can
>>>     always go down from highest protection to layered access etc but
>>>     for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
>>>     think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your
>>>     document sooner so that we could work on it. Also your argument
>>>     for not supporting model 3 in the document is not really based
>>>     on substance it's based on the fact that it won't get support in
>>>     the community. There is a May deadline. Community can come up
>>>     with consensus after the deadline on another leas protective
>>>     model.  but ICANN org can't wait!
>>>
>>>     I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and
>>>     we would like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>>
>>>     On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin
>>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         I will try to get the revised comments on the models that
>>>         have been submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2
>>>         EDT...but that may not happen.  The legal analysis will come
>>>         next week, it is a lot harder and more complex....but I want
>>>         to get my questions on the table.  It will be a long time
>>>         before this is over....
>>>
>>>         We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.
>>>         While option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>
>>>         cheers SP
>>>
>>>         On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>         Thanks Rafik
>>>>
>>>>         I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until
>>>>         I read the comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>>>>
>>>>         To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this
>>>>         statement. It sounds logical to me and consistent with our
>>>>         principles. But if Stephanie has a 15-page document coming
>>>>         I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent in our messaging.
>>>>
>>>>         Of course, being so close to the final day for
>>>>         submissions, I?ll write again on-list tomorrow in the
>>>>         absence of any other statements being on the table, as we
>>>>         cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>>
>>>>         Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>>
>>>>         Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>         Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak
>>>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>         Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>         We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The
>>>>>         deadline for submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the
>>>>>         coming monday. We need act quickly within this weekend .
>>>>>
>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>         Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>         From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
>>>>>         <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>>>>         Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>>>         Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
>>>>>         models
>>>>>         To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>>>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>>>>>         Cc:
>>>>>
>>>>>             I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG
>>>>>             position on the 12 January 2018 call for comments
>>>>>             released by ICANN org.
>>>>>
>>>>>             Principles
>>>>>
>>>>>             Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are
>>>>>             based on three fundamental principles. No model that
>>>>>             fails to conform to all three is acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>>>
>>>>>             1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to
>>>>>             ICANN's mission. That is, the data that is collected
>>>>>             and the data that are published must directly and
>>>>>             demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined
>>>>>             in Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any
>>>>>             definition of Whois purpose that is based on the way
>>>>>             people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>>>>>             indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that
>>>>>             certain people currently use Whois for any purpose
>>>>>             does not mean that the purpose of Whois is to provide
>>>>>             thick data about the domain and its registrant to
>>>>>             anyone who wants it for any reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>             2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be
>>>>>             globally uniform and not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN
>>>>>             was created to provide globalized governance of the
>>>>>             DNS so that it would continue to be globally
>>>>>             compatible and coordinated. Any solution that involves
>>>>>             fragmenting the policies and practices of Whois along
>>>>>             jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>>>
>>>>>             3. No tiered access solution that involves
>>>>>             establishing new criteria for access can feasibly be
>>>>>             created in the next 3 months. We would strongly resist
>>>>>             throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up
>>>>>             with entirely new policies, standards and practices
>>>>>             involving tiered access to data, and we do not want
>>>>>             ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>>>>>             community review and approval.
>>>>>
>>>>>             Based on these three principles, we believe that Model
>>>>>             3 is the only viable option available. Model 3
>>>>>             minimizes the data publicly displayed to that which is
>>>>>             required for maintaining the stability, security and
>>>>>             resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across
>>>>>             the board, and would be presumptively legal regardless
>>>>>             of which jurisdiction the registrar, registry or
>>>>>             registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established
>>>>>             legal due process for gaining access to additional
>>>>>             information.
>>>>>
>>>>>             There is room for discussion about how much data could
>>>>>             be publicly displayed under Model 3 consistent with
>>>>>             ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be within ICANN's
>>>>>             mission to include additional data in the public
>>>>>             record, such as an email address for the technical
>>>>>             contact and even possibly the name of the registrant.
>>>>>
>>>>>             The process of gaining access to additional data in
>>>>>             Model 1 is completely unacceptable. Self-certification
>>>>>             by any third party requestor is, we believe, not
>>>>>             compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified
>>>>>             by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>>>
>>>>>             Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable
>>>>>             set of criteria and processes were devised, but it
>>>>>             simply is not feasible for such a certification
>>>>>             program to be developed in 3 months. A certification
>>>>>             program thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for
>>>>>             loopholes, poor procedures, and a legal challenge to
>>>>>             ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals affected.
>>>>>
>>>>>             Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>>
>>>>>             Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>>
>>>>>             Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>         _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC
>>>         mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>         <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/df330393/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2Comments on GDPR Interim Compliance Models for WHOIS-1 - SPerrin 1-27.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 167034 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/df330393/attachment.docx>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Mon Jan 29 19:57:42 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:57:42 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <1f3c016c-47a1-6dfa-3b53-004952885ad3@kathykleiman.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <1f3c016c-47a1-6dfa-3b53-004952885ad3@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <aab03ee9-87a9-12f0-e5dd-0694dd57e180@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks Kathy, and I would just like to add that Goran basically 
reinforced his message about not being slavish about model 1, 2 oe 3 
when he spoke to us this morning.? And thanks for posting the link to 
the ECO model on the list.? It has been out there since December 11, and 
to be frank I thought more people would have looked at it.

cheers Stephanie

On 2018-01-29 12:52, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to support Stephanie's comments and I am sorry her 
> computer broke down at such a critical moment. But I do want to share 
> that her comments are brilliant and well-reasoned -- and walk us 
> through the complexities of a very difficult area. As befits the 
> co-author of the Canadian data protection law, her analysis of the 
> requirements of GDPR and the short-comings of the models is important 
> and badly needed. It's a "real-world" analysis for a situation we have 
> in front of us - ICANN and real companies in the registration industry 
> trying to comply with the GDPR and data protection laws around the 
> world. I fully endorsing adopting as much as possible from her comments.
>
> Also safe travels to LA!
>
> Best regards, Kathy
>
>
> On 1/28/2018 8:14 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> I am sorry I let you down.? To be frank, the discussion on the main 
>> list was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to 
>> be trashed by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.? 
>> However, I have had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, 
>> which slowed me down enormously, and there was no room for error.
>>
>> Here are a few compromise positions:
>>
>> 1.? I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different 
>> positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did 
>> not go into it.
>>
>> 2.? I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, 
>> the IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues 
>> successfully.
>>
>> 3.? I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these 
>> matters. There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting 
>> off of access for cyber investigators.? IF you have any ideas on how 
>> to square that circle, I am all ears.? It is a big problem....while I 
>> can be accused of caving in to a moderate position because I have 
>> been both a govt policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy 
>> commissioner's office, I think you have to acknowledge I have decades 
>> of experience fighting off law enforcement in back rooms.? If we want 
>> to be taken seriously, we have to acknowledge there is a problem. (it 
>> is of course their fault there is a problem, but that is another 
>> narrative....)
>>
>> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.? 
>> But if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b 
>> or 3, please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the 
>> other day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into 
>> models. COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models 
>> etc are welcome.
>>
>> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, 
>> and our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one. Strategically, and 
>> bearing in mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is 
>> an interim measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good 
>> idea, particularly when they have gone to the work and expense they 
>> have to produce an excellent proposal.
>>
>> Have to go drop the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in 
>> LA or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>>
>> cheers Steph
>>
>> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too 
>>> late and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law 
>>> Enforcement be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know 
>>> where I am from. Does Eco model address my worry?
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.?
>>>     There is a lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).? WE
>>>     need to know where the opposition is coming from.
>>>
>>>     The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with
>>>     the models.? There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing
>>>     another group's position.? Their legal analysis is excellent, in
>>>     my view.
>>>
>>>     Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out
>>>     there is, in my view, not a thoughtful position to take.? I can
>>>     attempt to reword it if you point me to precisely what is
>>>     sticking in your throats.? We want layered access....a failure
>>>     to support layered access at this point in time will set us back
>>>     years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>>
>>>     I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support
>>>     them.? I think they are well informed and realistic.? I think
>>>     Option 3 was thrown out there as a poison pill and I am not
>>>     taking it.
>>>
>>>     let me know.....
>>>
>>>     cheers Steph
>>>
>>>     On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>>     Hello Stephanie
>>>>
>>>>     Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model
>>>>     2b which you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we
>>>>     cannot support it now. I suggest going for the highest
>>>>     protection now until we work out something better. You can
>>>>     always go down from highest protection to layered access etc
>>>>     but for now and since we don't have much time to reach
>>>>     consensus I think we can stick to model 3.? I wish you had sent
>>>>     us your document sooner so that we could work on it. Also your
>>>>     argument for not supporting model 3 in the document is not
>>>>     really based on substance it's based on the fact that it won't
>>>>     get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
>>>>     Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on
>>>>     another leas protective model. ?but ICANN org can't wait!
>>>>
>>>>     I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and
>>>>     we would like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>>>
>>>>     On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin
>>>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         I will try to get the revised comments on the models that
>>>>         have been submitted in before I run for? the plane at 2
>>>>         EDT...but that may not happen. The legal analysis will come
>>>>         next week, it is a lot harder and more complex....but I
>>>>         want to get my questions on the table.? It will be a long
>>>>         time before this is over....
>>>>
>>>>         We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.
>>>>         While option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>>
>>>>         cheers SP
>>>>
>>>>         On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>         Thanks Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>         I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24?hours?until
>>>>>         I read the comments currently?being drafted by?Stephanie.
>>>>>
>>>>>         To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this
>>>>>         statement. It sounds logical to me and consistent with our
>>>>>         principles. But if Stephanie has a 15-page document coming
>>>>>         I?d like to make sure we?re being consistent in our
>>>>>         messaging.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Of course, being so close to the final day for
>>>>>         submissions,?I?ll write again on-list tomorrow in the
>>>>>         absence of any other statements being on the table, as we
>>>>>         cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>>         Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>         wrote:
>>>>>>         Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The
>>>>>>         deadline for submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the
>>>>>>         coming monday. We need act quickly within this weekend .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>         From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
>>>>>>         <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>>>>>         Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>>>>         Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
>>>>>>         models
>>>>>>         To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>>>>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>>>>>>         Cc:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG
>>>>>>             position on the 12 January 2018 call for comments
>>>>>>             released by ICANN org.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Principles
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are
>>>>>>             based on three fundamental principles. No model that
>>>>>>             fails to conform to all three is acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to
>>>>>>             ICANN's mission. That is, the data that is collected
>>>>>>             and the data that are published must directly and
>>>>>>             demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined
>>>>>>             in Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any
>>>>>>             definition of Whois purpose that is based on the way
>>>>>>             people happen to make use of data that can be
>>>>>>             accessed indiscriminately in a public directory. The
>>>>>>             fact that certain people currently use Whois for any
>>>>>>             purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois is to
>>>>>>             provide thick data about the domain and its
>>>>>>             registrant to anyone who wants it for any reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be
>>>>>>             globally uniform and not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN
>>>>>>             was created to provide globalized governance of the
>>>>>>             DNS so that it would continue to be globally
>>>>>>             compatible and coordinated. Any solution that
>>>>>>             involves fragmenting the policies and practices of
>>>>>>             Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             3. No tiered access solution that involves
>>>>>>             establishing new criteria for access can feasibly be
>>>>>>             created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>>>>>>             resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to
>>>>>>             come up with entirely new policies, standards and
>>>>>>             practices involving tiered access to data, and we do
>>>>>>             not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not
>>>>>>             subject to community review and approval.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Based on these three principles, we believe that
>>>>>>             Model 3 is the only viable option available. Model 3
>>>>>>             minimizes the data publicly displayed to that which
>>>>>>             is required for maintaining the stability, security
>>>>>>             and resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied
>>>>>>             across the board, and would be presumptively legal
>>>>>>             regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
>>>>>>             registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on
>>>>>>             established legal due process for gaining access to
>>>>>>             additional information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             There is room for discussion about how much data
>>>>>>             could be publicly displayed under Model 3 consistent
>>>>>>             with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be within ICANN's
>>>>>>             mission to include additional data in the public
>>>>>>             record, such as an email address for the technical
>>>>>>             contact and even possibly the name of the registrant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             The process of gaining access to additional data in
>>>>>>             Model 1 is completely unacceptable.
>>>>>>             Self-certification by any third party requestor is,
>>>>>>             we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such
>>>>>>             access justified by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's
>>>>>>             mission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable
>>>>>>             set of criteria and processes were devised, but it
>>>>>>             simply is not feasible for such a certification
>>>>>>             program to be developed in 3 months. A certification
>>>>>>             program thrown together in a rush poses huge risks
>>>>>>             for loopholes, poor procedures, and a legal challenge
>>>>>>             to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals affected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is  <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc  <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>>         _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC
>>>>         mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>         <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/16e2d7b7/attachment.htm>

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Mon Jan 29 21:27:00 2018
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:27:00 -0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvD=V9mOp_ikOS4mwOkzwBTPibRJ9S6t_yqnNFew+epefg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <68e80d5a-c263-723d-4a51-e5641e7c5811@apc.org>
 <CAN1qJvD=V9mOp_ikOS4mwOkzwBTPibRJ9S6t_yqnNFew+epefg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4df8317f-f2b5-c2f7-8111-17e5894d2548@kathykleiman.com>

Apologies All for so many comments. This is the last one and then I am 
off to enjoy NamesCon. Hope you enjoying LA.

Farzi,

In an earlier email, you insightfully asked: "I don't want Law 
Enforcement be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I 
am from. Does Eco model address my worry?" We have to dig deeper, but 
this is where the ECO Model seems to shine.

What I fear is the ICANN Models, if adopted, asking the GAC and ICANN 
Community to very rapidly come up with the law enforcement disclosure 
models. Knowing their work, I fear they will focus on the laws that 
protect us from disclosure to foreign law enforcement -- the GDPR laws 
that would protect European citizens and residents from disclosure to 
foreign governments who they are criticizing legally and fully from 
their current locations. Ditto for the pro-democracy groups in the US -- 
disclosure of their names and addresses to Chinese or other 
anti-democracy countries whether their writings (either neutral or 
anti-China) may be viewed as a violation of law. They may still have 
families in these countries! (This is not a hypothetical, but real world 
situations I have work with). ICANN does not have a history of 
differentiating between countries and law enforcement - all are likely 
to wind up equal in our interim (and final solution) and that concerns 
me more deeply than I can tell you.

For the Interim Solution that we need so quickly, as you point out, the 
ECO Model will ground it under EU laws and EU treaties that are grounded 
in human rights, individual rights, protection for an array of 
noncommercial issues, including political, moral, social, sexual, 
religious, etc. That means that international law enforcement will *not* 
have unlimited access to the data, but disclosure will be more selective 
and more discerning.

For an interim model, it is one with law and precedent and protections.

Best regards, Kathy

On 1/28/2018 1:48 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> So i just paste this from the ECO model here:
>
> [The legal basis for disclosure to law enforcement agencies is limited 
> to authorities acting on the grounds of EU law or national laws of EU 
> member states.]
>
> What does this mean? So only EU laws and Eu national laws can be used 
> by law enforcement globally to have access to data?
>
> Then we have this:
> [It is further proposed that certification and handling of requests 
> can be centralized in a Trusted Data Clearinghouse to avoid duplicate 
> efforts, to take off the burden of organizational, proceduaral and 
> financial efforts off the controllers and requesters, to ensure 
> consistency of decision-making and to make the system ?customer 
> friendly?.]
>
>
> A trusted data clearing house. Don't know how to feel about  that. 
> They are also in favor of thick whois data and think it should 
> continue. I don't think thick whois is justified. I don't think we 
> thought that when it was approved either.
>
>
> with regards to international data transfer to non eu law enforcement 
>  please look at page 67
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-cm3-eco-domain-industry-playbook-11jan18-en.pdf
>
> [International Transfer of Whois Data to Non-EU Law Enforcement Agencies
> According to Directive (EU) 2016/680, European Member States should 
> ensure that a transfer by European law enforcement agencies to a third 
> country or to an international organisation takes place only if 
> necessary for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution 
> of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including 
> the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public 
> security, and that the controller in the third country or 
> international organisation is a competent authority as well. Similar 
> to the requirements for international data transfer according to the 
> G....]
>
>
> They also say they have not consulted with data protection 
> authorities. If I am not mistaken.
>
> ECO model could be great. I can't analyze it now I dont agree with 
> some things they say I don't understand other things.
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:35 PM avri doria <avri at apc.org 
> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>     (observer)
>
>
>     On 28-Jan-18 11:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>     > I am not familiar with the eco model
>
>     https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdpr-cm3-eco-proposal-details-11jan18-en.pdf
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> -- 
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/c40a98af/attachment.htm>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Mon Jan 29 22:52:04 2018
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 21:52:04 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <974ba9a0-7703-d0f9-a575-f6226885e381@mpicc.de>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <974ba9a0-7703-d0f9-a575-f6226885e381@mpicc.de>
Message-ID: <CAEux40t1c1Gdn=Kp3pPZTSb_OPun24HSVmrwr8fy-Gx9gbZuWQ@mail.gmail.com>

Supported +1

On 29 January 2018 at 17:52, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:

> All,
>
> I support Rafik's approach.
>
> 1) we can submit the comment supporting the model 3.
>
> 2) we can tweak 2b and look more thoroughly at eco meanwhile and clarify
> some things that are not clear there for me yet - like LEA access and some
> other.
>
> 3) as we have to be rational, we can bargain further with a mix of 3 and
> 2b, if needed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 28/01/18 08:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> while I checked the 3 models, I am not familiar with the eco model or
> comment and so making any judgment hard. is it similar to one of the models
> or something totally different proposal?
> maybe as context, we should recall that those models are supposed to be
> interim solutions. One risk with model 2b or a similar (eco?) is what
> French calls "le temporaire qui dure", a lasting temporary. It means having
> a workaround that will become de facto the solution with all its drawbacks
> and we won't have a real say in the process such accreditation or
> certification (we can learn from the current discussion on implementing of
> PPSAI and how staff views differ from the policy).
>
> let's think in practical fashion here:
> - we got a deadline and need to submit a comment
> - the discussion is still continuing e.g. webinar this week and beyond
> - there are calls for extension by BC and IPC because they want to propose
> more models beyond the 3 tabled.
>
> I guess one approach is to have the comment saying that the model 3 to
> meet the current deadline because its restrictions is a more safe solution
> till we move for a restrictive layered option (2b or eco model) after a
> real community involvement and discussion. Having a model 3 used is a real
> ncentive for everyone to work on a long time solution acknowledging all
> concerns from the different parties instead of tricking us to accept an
> ill-designed option. the document made by Stephanie is a starting point for
> us to work on the details in coming months.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-29 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca>:
>
>> I am sorry I let you down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main list
>> was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be trashed
>> by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.  However, I have
>> had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, which slowed me down
>> enormously, and there was no room for error.
>>
>> Here are a few compromise positions:
>>
>> 1.  I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different
>> positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not go
>> into it.
>>
>> 2.  I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the
>> IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues successfully.
>>
>> 3.  I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these
>> matters.  There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off of
>> access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how to square
>> that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big problem....while I can be accused
>> of caving in to a moderate position because I have been both a govt
>> policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I
>> think you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting off law
>> enforcement in back rooms.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to
>> acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course their fault there is a
>> problem, but that is another narrative....)
>>
>> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  But
>> if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3,
>> please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the other
>> day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into models.
>> COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc are welcome.
>>
>> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that, and
>> our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and bearing in
>> mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an interim
>> measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea, particularly
>> when they have gone to the work and expense they have to produce an
>> excellent proposal.
>>
>> Have to go drop  the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA
>> or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>>
>> cheers Steph
>> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late
>> and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement
>> be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does
>> Eco model address my worry?
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a
>>> lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the
>>> opposition is coming from.
>>>
>>> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the
>>> models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
>>> position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is, in
>>> my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it if
>>> you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want
>>> layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time
>>> will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>>
>>> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I
>>> think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown
>>> out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>>>
>>> let me know.....
>>>
>>> cheers Steph
>>> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Stephanie
>>>
>>> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which
>>> you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now.
>>> I suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
>>> better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
>>> etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
>>> think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
>>> so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
>>> in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
>>> that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
>>> Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
>>> protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!
>>>
>>> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
>>> like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <
>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
>>>> submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
>>>> happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
>>>> more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a
>>>> long time before this is over....
>>>>
>>>> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While
>>>> option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>>
>>>> cheers SP
>>>> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Rafik
>>>>
>>>> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the
>>>> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement.
>>>> It sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if
>>>> Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being
>>>> consistent in our messaging.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write
>>>> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the
>>>> table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
>>>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act
>>>> quickly within this weekend .
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
>>>> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Principles
>>>>
>>>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>>>> fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
>>>> acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That
>>>> is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must
>>>> directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in
>>>> Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that
>>>> is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>>>> indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
>>>> currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
>>>> is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
>>>> wants it for any reason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and
>>>> not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized
>>>> governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible
>>>> and coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
>>>> practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria
>>>> for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>>>> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>>>> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>>>> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>>>> community review and approval.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only
>>>> viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to
>>>> that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and
>>>> resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would
>>>> be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
>>>> registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>>>> process for gaining access to additional information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
>>>> displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
>>>> within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
>>>> such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
>>>> name of the registrant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is
>>>> completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor
>>>> is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified
>>>> by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria and
>>>> processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>>>> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
>>>> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>>>> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>>>> affected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>
>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


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







*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/
<http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/14e417af/attachment.htm>

From farellfolly at gmail.com  Mon Jan 29 23:15:07 2018
From: farellfolly at gmail.com (Farell Folly)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 21:15:07 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance
 models
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40t1c1Gdn=Kp3pPZTSb_OPun24HSVmrwr8fy-Gx9gbZuWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAH5sThm6Nn9X3EKgkFU-G3wQcS4ELNoHuUbi67WbUe66N_7nhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ro7pP9V0lwUqclxEbpaIPDwgg_qsFmtI1hcMJxasmdLMLGRxwBlC7k-VKd0TGrHtBYUuZ5UsPuYi4sxAPJhRAZbhKfdP7xvZ_uAiqq0TTic=@ferdeline.com>
 <2e413397-f829-8a27-9eab-42ca42c605cd@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvDmfnvvqdD1-u+Z_anFQg=y8A7MfonGDkEi9jgMJZXmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <143d9719-1481-507e-0f16-ba526869cc51@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAN1qJvB7zz7KYa8rBdqPuewJF032NYvCdPuYzup+6X2OfKP6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fa17fc04-1dcb-3e73-b97a-df12164f65db@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAH5sThkBPR8Gzd0Yr6GQS=-LNr98OnAcXitiq5=9qp7uGf1UQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <974ba9a0-7703-d0f9-a575-f6226885e381@mpicc.de>
 <CAEux40t1c1Gdn=Kp3pPZTSb_OPun24HSVmrwr8fy-Gx9gbZuWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADzHdxdaUPV-oVPRr_Y027c=mWE=1BMrd+YX7JuX58j5FgbpOQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I am really hesitating between 2b and 3 depending on how ICANN will process
during implementation. At first sight, I liked the model 2B and how it
distinguished between natural and legal and the circumstances, but I scared
about the neutrality and effectiveness of the third party and the fact that
this interim model becomes a long-term solution which will/may fail against
law in many jurisdictions. The model 3 is very safe and if we have to
choose something temporary, it appears to be the best option.

My concern is that if someone can afford model 2b, (s)he can also afford
model 3b since it is more restrictive on how one can access whois data
(better privacy) and it also gives more flexibility for national law
enforcement bodies on how they regulate user/data privacy while preventing
ICANN to deal about all use cases;

@Stephanie, I have not finished reading all your comments, I am sorry. I
will continue doing so and check whether I miss some insights about the
analysis.

Le lun. 29 janv. 2018 ? 21:52, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> a ?crit :

> Supported +1
>
> On 29 January 2018 at 17:52, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I support Rafik's approach.
>>
>> 1) we can submit the comment supporting the model 3.
>>
>> 2) we can tweak 2b and look more thoroughly at eco meanwhile and clarify
>> some things that are not clear there for me yet - like LEA access and some
>> other.
>>
>> 3) as we have to be rational, we can bargain further with a mix of 3 and
>> 2b, if needed.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On 28/01/18 08:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> while I checked the 3 models, I am not familiar with the eco model or
>> comment and so making any judgment hard. is it similar to one of the models
>> or something totally different proposal?
>> maybe as context, we should recall that those models are supposed to be
>> interim solutions. One risk with model 2b or a similar (eco?) is what
>> French calls "le temporaire qui dure", a lasting temporary. It means having
>> a workaround that will become de facto the solution with all its drawbacks
>> and we won't have a real say in the process such accreditation or
>> certification (we can learn from the current discussion on implementing of
>> PPSAI and how staff views differ from the policy).
>>
>> let's think in practical fashion here:
>> - we got a deadline and need to submit a comment
>> - the discussion is still continuing e.g. webinar this week and beyond
>> - there are calls for extension by BC and IPC because they want to
>> propose more models beyond the 3 tabled.
>>
>> I guess one approach is to have the comment saying that the model 3 to
>> meet the current deadline because its restrictions is a more safe solution
>> till we move for a restrictive layered option (2b or eco model) after a
>> real community involvement and discussion. Having a model 3 used is a real
>> ncentive for everyone to work on a long time solution acknowledging all
>> concerns from the different parties instead of tricking us to accept an
>> ill-designed option. the document made by Stephanie is a starting point for
>> us to work on the details in coming months.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2018-01-29 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>>
>>> I am sorry I let you down.  To be frank, the discussion on the main list
>>> was all over the map, my desire to throw my comment out there to be trashed
>>> by folks not following these matters was pretty minimal.  However, I have
>>> had a complete meltdown with my computer and my ISP, which slowed me down
>>> enormously, and there was no room for error.
>>>
>>> Here are a few compromise positions:
>>>
>>> 1.  I can summarize at the end of the analysis of the different
>>> positions, the various views (I acknowledged EFF's position but did not go
>>> into it.
>>>
>>> 2.  I can add a more thorough discussion of the law enforcement ask, the
>>> IP lawyer ask, etc. and why option 3 deals with those issues successfully.
>>>
>>> 3.  I can discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on these
>>> matters.  There will be no support from them for a wholesale cutting off of
>>> access for cyber investigators.  IF you have any ideas on how to square
>>> that circle, I am all ears.  It is a big problem....while I can be accused
>>> of caving in to a moderate position because I have been both a govt
>>> policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a privacy commissioner's office, I
>>> think you have to acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting off law
>>> enforcement in back rooms.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to
>>> acknowledge there is a problem. (it is of course their fault there is a
>>> problem, but that is another narrative....)
>>>
>>> I am also very happy saying there is a wide range of views in NCSG.  But
>>> if you want a narrow answer to the question of whether it is 2b or 3,
>>> please pay attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar the other
>>> day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we simply pulled them into models.
>>> COmments on all aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc are welcome.
>>>
>>> SO I think we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3 for that,
>>> and our favorite proposal so far is the ECO one.  Strategically, and
>>> bearing in mind we still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is an
>>> interim measure, supporting the registrars seems to me a good idea,
>>> particularly when they have gone to the work and expense they have to
>>> produce an excellent proposal.
>>>
>>> Have to go drop  the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this evening in LA
>>> or tomorrow morning at breakfast?
>>>
>>> cheers Steph
>>> On 2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>
>>> I tell you what is sticking in my throat Stephanie: You are way too late
>>> and we relied on you and you delivered late. I don't want Law Enforcement
>>> be viewed as legitimate force globally and you know where I am from. Does
>>> Eco model address my worry?
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well I am sorry that I did not get the comment in as well.  There is a
>>>> lot to read and I have read it (unlike many).  WE need to know where the
>>>> opposition is coming from.
>>>>
>>>> The ECO comments have been out there a while, and they deal with the
>>>> models.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with endorsing another group's
>>>> position.  Their legal analysis is excellent, in my view.
>>>>
>>>> Ignoring the reality that there is a cybercrime problem out there is,
>>>> in my view, not a thoughtful position to take.  I can attempt to reword it
>>>> if you point me to precisely what is sticking in your throats.  We want
>>>> layered access....a failure to support layered access at this point in time
>>>> will set us back years, we finally have ICANN agreeing to it.
>>>>
>>>> I am happy to send my comments in myself if you don't support them.  I
>>>> think they are well informed and realistic.  I think Option 3 was thrown
>>>> out there as a poison pill and I am not taking it.
>>>>
>>>> let me know.....
>>>>
>>>> cheers Steph
>>>> On 2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Stephanie
>>>>
>>>> Is eco model in the models that offered by Icann? Is it model 2b which
>>>> you supported in the doc you sent us? If not then we cannot support it now.
>>>> I suggest going for the highest protection now until we work out something
>>>> better. You can always go down from highest protection to layered access
>>>> etc but for now and since we don't have much time to reach consensus I
>>>> think we can stick to model 3.  I wish you had sent us your document sooner
>>>> so that we could work on it. Also your argument for not supporting model 3
>>>> in the document is not really based on substance it's based on the fact
>>>> that it won't get support in the community. There is a May deadline.
>>>> Community can come up with consensus after the deadline on another leas
>>>> protective model.  but ICANN org can't wait!
>>>>
>>>> I suggest pc members weigh in on this deadline is tomorrow and we would
>>>> like to know our positoon before the intersessional.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <
>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
>>>>> submitted in before I run for  the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
>>>>> happen.  The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
>>>>> more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table.  It will be a
>>>>> long time before this is over....
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view.  While
>>>>> option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers SP
>>>>> On 2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> I?m going to hold off on endorsing this for 24 hours until I read the
>>>>> comments currently being drafted by Stephanie.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be clear, this is not to say that I do not endorse this statement.
>>>>> It sounds logical to me and consistent with our principles. But if
>>>>> Stephanie has a 15-page document coming I?d like to make sure we?re being
>>>>> consistent in our messaging.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, being so close to the final day for submissions, I?ll write
>>>>> again on-list tomorrow in the absence of any other statements being on the
>>>>> table, as we cannot miss this submission deadline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincere thanks to Milton for drafting this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> We got a comment for the GDPR compliance model. The deadline for
>>>>> submission ins the 29th Jan, which is the coming monday. We need act
>>>>> quickly within this weekend .
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>>>>> Date: Jan 26, 2018 6:05 PM
>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Whois compliance models
>>>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>
>>>>> I offer the following as a first draft of the NCSG position on the 12
>>>>> January 2018 call for comments released by ICANN org.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Principles
>>>>>
>>>>> Our evaluation of the models offered by ICANN are based on three
>>>>> fundamental principles. No model that fails to conform to all three is
>>>>> acceptable to the NCSG.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The purpose of whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission. That
>>>>> is, the data that is collected and the data that are published must
>>>>> directly and demonstrably contribute to ICANN's mission as defined in
>>>>> Article 1 of its new bylaws. We reject any definition of Whois purpose that
>>>>> is based on the way people happen to make use of data that can be accessed
>>>>> indiscriminately in a public directory. The fact that certain people
>>>>> currently use Whois for any purpose does not mean that the purpose of Whois
>>>>> is to provide thick data about the domain and its registrant to anyone who
>>>>> wants it for any reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and
>>>>> not vary by jurisdiction. ICANN was created to provide globalized
>>>>> governance of the DNS so that it would continue to be globally compatible
>>>>> and coordinated. Any solution that involves fragmenting the policies and
>>>>> practices of Whois along jurisdictional lines is not desirable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria
>>>>> for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months. We would strongly
>>>>> resist throwing the community into a hopeless rush to come up with entirely
>>>>> new policies, standards and practices involving tiered access to data, and
>>>>> we do not want ICANN staff to invent a policy that is not subject to
>>>>> community review and approval.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on these three principles, we believe that Model 3 is the only
>>>>> viable option available. Model 3 minimizes the data publicly displayed to
>>>>> that which is required for maintaining the stability, security and
>>>>> resiliency of the DNS. Model 3 could be applied across the board, and would
>>>>> be presumptively legal regardless of which jurisdiction the registrar,
>>>>> registry or registrant are in. And Model 3 relies on established legal due
>>>>> process for gaining access to additional information.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is room for discussion about how much data could be publicly
>>>>> displayed under Model 3 consistent with ICANN's mission. E.g., it may be
>>>>> within ICANN's mission to include additional data in the public record,
>>>>> such as an email address for the technical contact and even possibly the
>>>>> name of the registrant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The process of gaining access to additional data in Model 1 is
>>>>> completely unacceptable. Self-certification by any third party requestor
>>>>> is, we believe, not compliant with GDPR nor does is such access justified
>>>>> by the purpose of Whois or ICANN's mission.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Model 2 might possibly be acceptable if an suitable set of criteria
>>>>> and processes were devised, but it simply is not feasible for such a
>>>>> certification program to be developed in 3 months. A certification program
>>>>> thrown together in a rush poses huge risks for loopholes, poor procedures,
>>>>> and a legal challenge to ICANN, either from DPAs or from individuals
>>>>> affected.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>>
>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/
> <http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 
Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/0b08e5d9/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Jan 30 02:36:55 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:36:55 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] perrin final comments on GDPR
Message-ID: <982feb1f-3db3-e895-770a-5f205bb311d0@mail.utoronto.ca>

Hi folks, as promised I have rewritten these comments as mine. I have 
also fixed the comments on model 3, and I hope you like it better.? I 
have added? analysis of some of the models presented, and will send the 
legal analysis separately later.

Have not pushed the send button yet, so comments welcome for a short 
time....

cheers Stephanie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/9ea3e64e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4Comments on GDPR Interim Compliance Models for WHOIS-1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 183178 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/9ea3e64e/attachment.docx>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan 30 02:48:04 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:48:04 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] perrin final comments on GDPR
In-Reply-To: <982feb1f-3db3-e895-770a-5f205bb311d0@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <982feb1f-3db3-e895-770a-5f205bb311d0@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5lLblHQ1CpOBjfRGX--eV07sW6nf12zCYLUohl07KlKTmBEWOksntyVp2KRCjpN4ABVDP3boN8vLrb95T3BwDeTQaHNRrRfZH-J8hWCd7JA=@ferdeline.com>

Stephanie,

I think this is a comprehensive, well-written analysis of the various models that have been proposed, and it is a valuable contribution that I believe others will find extremely helpful in understanding what distinguishes one proposal from another. Well done. I am saddened we are not submitting this under the NCSG moniker.

Best wishes,

Ayden F?rdeline

-------- Original Message --------
On 30 January 2018 12:36 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Hi folks, as promised I have rewritten these comments as mine. I have also fixed the comments on model 3, and I hope you like it better.  I have added  analysis of some of the models presented, and will send the legal analysis separately later.
>
> Have not pushed the send button yet, so comments welcome for a short time....
>
> cheers Stephanie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/dcfe5889/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Tue Jan 30 02:50:49 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:50:49 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] perrin final comments on GDPR
In-Reply-To: <5lLblHQ1CpOBjfRGX--eV07sW6nf12zCYLUohl07KlKTmBEWOksntyVp2KRCjpN4ABVDP3boN8vLrb95T3BwDeTQaHNRrRfZH-J8hWCd7JA=@ferdeline.com>
References: <982feb1f-3db3-e895-770a-5f205bb311d0@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <5lLblHQ1CpOBjfRGX--eV07sW6nf12zCYLUohl07KlKTmBEWOksntyVp2KRCjpN4ABVDP3boN8vLrb95T3BwDeTQaHNRrRfZH-J8hWCd7JA=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWoga+Pc8WmmYcrYR8kdpPXqzDdPOJJ=gbPQ-2Vo0QQjPg@mail.gmail.com>

So, is Stephanie submitting these on her name?
Are we still submitting something as NCSG? If yes, what is that and when is
this being sent?

------------------------
**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>)

2018-01-29 16:48 GMT-08:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Stephanie,
>
> I think this is a comprehensive, well-written analysis of the various
> models that have been proposed, and it is a valuable contribution that I
> believe others will find extremely helpful in understanding what
> distinguishes one proposal from another. Well done. I am saddened we are
> not submitting this under the NCSG moniker.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 30 January 2018 12:36 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi folks, as promised I have rewritten these comments as mine. I have also
> fixed the comments on model 3, and I hope you like it better.  I have
> added  analysis of some of the models presented, and will send the legal
> analysis separately later.
>
> Have not pushed the send button yet, so comments welcome for a short
> time....
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/a3e321b6/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Jan 30 02:56:39 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:56:39 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] perrin final comments on GDPR
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWoga+Pc8WmmYcrYR8kdpPXqzDdPOJJ=gbPQ-2Vo0QQjPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <982feb1f-3db3-e895-770a-5f205bb311d0@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <5lLblHQ1CpOBjfRGX--eV07sW6nf12zCYLUohl07KlKTmBEWOksntyVp2KRCjpN4ABVDP3boN8vLrb95T3BwDeTQaHNRrRfZH-J8hWCd7JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CABDXvWoga+Pc8WmmYcrYR8kdpPXqzDdPOJJ=gbPQ-2Vo0QQjPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=LdkURzkNzRWfHhzZO63-ttK-ABZkPZ3_fVgvVDebfKw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

After discussion  and seeing comments on PC, I understand there is support
for my suggested approach to go with model 3 as principled position while
we know that other models may be chosen after the comment period. We will
continue discussion with Stephanie document later on with model based on
eco proposal.

I will send draft from Milton later on today (recall we are still at
strategical council meeting)

Best,

Rafik

On Jan 29, 2018 4:50 PM, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote:

So, is Stephanie submitting these on her name?
Are we still submitting something as NCSG? If yes, what is that and when is
this being sent?

------------------------
**Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
& Mexico
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
- AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN'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>)

2018-01-29 16:48 GMT-08:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Stephanie,
>
> I think this is a comprehensive, well-written analysis of the various
> models that have been proposed, and it is a valuable contribution that I
> believe others will find extremely helpful in understanding what
> distinguishes one proposal from another. Well done. I am saddened we are
> not submitting this under the NCSG moniker.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden F?rdeline
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 30 January 2018 12:36 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi folks, as promised I have rewritten these comments as mine. I have also
> fixed the comments on model 3, and I hope you like it better.  I have
> added  analysis of some of the models presented, and will send the legal
> analysis separately later.
>
> Have not pushed the send button yet, so comments welcome for a short
> time....
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180130/3a0d957c/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Jan 30 02:57:32 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:57:32 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] perrin final comments on GDPR
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=LdkURzkNzRWfHhzZO63-ttK-ABZkPZ3_fVgvVDebfKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <982feb1f-3db3-e895-770a-5f205bb311d0@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <5lLblHQ1CpOBjfRGX--eV07sW6nf12zCYLUohl07KlKTmBEWOksntyVp2KRCjpN4ABVDP3boN8vLrb95T3BwDeTQaHNRrRfZH-J8hWCd7JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CABDXvWoga+Pc8WmmYcrYR8kdpPXqzDdPOJJ=gbPQ-2Vo0QQjPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LdkURzkNzRWfHhzZO63-ttK-ABZkPZ3_fVgvVDebfKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4fb943f6-35b1-d3c0-875f-a7434069d761@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks Rafik!? I think this is a great outcome.

cheers SP

On 2018-01-29 19:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After discussion? and seeing comments on PC, I understand there is 
> support for my suggested approach to go with model 3 as principled 
> position while we know that other models may be chosen after the 
> comment period. We will continue discussion with Stephanie document 
> later on with model based on eco proposal.
>
> I will send draft from Milton later on today (recall we are still at 
> strategical council meeting)
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> On Jan 29, 2018 4:50 PM, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com 
> <mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     So, is Stephanie submitting these on her name?
>     Are we still submitting something as NCSG? If yes, what is that
>     and when is this being sent?
>
>     ------------------------
>     **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>)
>
>     2018-01-29 16:48 GMT-08:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
>         Stephanie,
>
>         I think this is a comprehensive, well-written analysis of the
>         various models that have been proposed, and it is a valuable
>         contribution that I believe others will find extremely helpful
>         in understanding what distinguishes one proposal from another.
>         Well done. I am saddened we are not submitting this under the
>         NCSG moniker.
>
>         Best wishes,
>
>         Ayden F?rdeline
>
>
>         -------- Original Message --------
>         On 30 January 2018 12:36 AM, Stephanie Perrin
>         <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>>         Hi folks, as promised I have rewritten these comments as
>>         mine. I have also fixed the comments on model 3, and I hope
>>         you like it better.? I have added? analysis of some of the
>>         models presented, and will send the legal analysis separately
>>         later.
>>
>>         Have not pushed the send button yet, so comments welcome for
>>         a short time....
>>
>>         cheers Stephanie
>>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/7aef9fdc/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Tue Jan 30 03:15:40 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 20:15:40 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] perrin final comments on GDPR
In-Reply-To: <4fb943f6-35b1-d3c0-875f-a7434069d761@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <982feb1f-3db3-e895-770a-5f205bb311d0@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <5lLblHQ1CpOBjfRGX--eV07sW6nf12zCYLUohl07KlKTmBEWOksntyVp2KRCjpN4ABVDP3boN8vLrb95T3BwDeTQaHNRrRfZH-J8hWCd7JA=@ferdeline.com>
 <CABDXvWoga+Pc8WmmYcrYR8kdpPXqzDdPOJJ=gbPQ-2Vo0QQjPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sTh=LdkURzkNzRWfHhzZO63-ttK-ABZkPZ3_fVgvVDebfKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4fb943f6-35b1-d3c0-875f-a7434069d761@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWpZAO5g+f9N278s_x2i1hUc71-0740EvPC1=aKYsS0waA@mail.gmail.com>

Just for the record.

I support this approach, Rafik. Let's get our submission in time.

And I thank Stephanie for taking the time to make this well informed
analysis. After a quick glance on the document, i am sure this will help
inform our future discussions on this topic as we continue to evaluate
different models that will be coming in as a result of the consultation
under way. And thanks for mentioning NCSG position in your comment and for
highlighting the points that worry you in Model 3. This will give ICANN Org
a good view of us as a group.

Regards,
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>)

2018-01-29 16:57 GMT-08:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> Thanks Rafik!  I think this is a great outcome.
>
> cheers SP
> On 2018-01-29 19:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> After discussion  and seeing comments on PC, I understand there is support
> for my suggested approach to go with model 3 as principled position while
> we know that other models may be chosen after the comment period. We will
> continue discussion with Stephanie document later on with model based on
> eco proposal.
>
> I will send draft from Milton later on today (recall we are still at
> strategical council meeting)
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> On Jan 29, 2018 4:50 PM, "Ars?ne Tungali" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, is Stephanie submitting these on her name?
> Are we still submitting something as NCSG? If yes, what is that and when
> is this being sent?
>
> ------------------------
> **Ars?ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
> GPG: 523644A0
> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN'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>)
>
> 2018-01-29 16:48 GMT-08:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Stephanie,
>>
>> I think this is a comprehensive, well-written analysis of the various
>> models that have been proposed, and it is a valuable contribution that I
>> believe others will find extremely helpful in understanding what
>> distinguishes one proposal from another. Well done. I am saddened we are
>> not submitting this under the NCSG moniker.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> On 30 January 2018 12:36 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks, as promised I have rewritten these comments as mine. I have
>> also fixed the comments on model 3, and I hope you like it better.  I have
>> added  analysis of some of the models presented, and will send the legal
>> analysis separately later.
>>
>> Have not pushed the send button yet, so comments welcome for a short
>> time....
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/0513ac0e/attachment.htm>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Jan 30 03:47:46 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 20:47:46 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Perrin comments on GDPR
Message-ID: <85358bff-f38a-490f-f2d4-50f3a0e05767@mail.utoronto.ca>

I have sent this comment in.? Feedback and discussion always welcome!

Stephanie Perrin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/9eb9742c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Perrin Comments on GDPR Interim Compliance Models for WHOIS.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 180312 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180129/9eb9742c/attachment.pdf>

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Tue Jan 30 19:28:31 2018
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:28:31 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the Whois compliance models
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR0701MB12741DD726784132D6386F68A1E40@CY1PR0701MB1274.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN3PR0701MB126542154BE3020610BA792EA1E70@BN3PR0701MB1265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <b05af3e1-7313-1242-bc7f-d29200407215@kathykleiman.com>
 <CY1PR0701MB12741DD726784132D6386F68A1E40@CY1PR0701MB1274.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <b1ba88d6-0b92-13fe-f13c-4814be6281dc@mail.utoronto.ca>

There are a lot of new comments on the website 
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en

Ours have been acknowledged but not posted as yet.? I am going to focus 
on some of the rather important ones, like this correspondence from the 
European Commission.? We can bicker about the models until the cows come 
home, what is needed now in my view is analysis to combat some of the 
contributions, which if history is anything to go by, will accept some 
of the submissions as truth.? There is a lot of work to do here, 
volunteers willing to do a summary (template might be useful) would be 
most welcome.

Kind regards,

Stephanie

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/avramopoulos-et-al-to-marby-29jan18-en.pdf


<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/avramopoulos-et-al-to-marby-29jan18-en.pdf>



On 2018-01-30 10:31, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Kathy see comments below
>
> 1."The purpose of Whois must be strictly tied to ICANN's mission." ==> 
> that's absolutely true but we don't have that purpose yet (and I have 
> to tell you that the RDS Working Group is not doing a great job of 
> analyzng "purpose" right now
>
> Then we agree. You should then support the comments, which focuses on 
> developing a mission-consistent purpose. Your logic escapes me
>
> /unlimited "all you can eat access" by everyone, /including 
> intellectual property attorneys and law enforcement. That is happily 
> going to change!!
>
> No, Kathy, it isn?t unless we go with model 3 and then define a 
> limited mission-consistent purpose for Whois
>
> 2."Whois service, like the DNS itself, should be globally uniform and 
> not vary by jurisdiction." ==> Yes, and that's what the ECO Model and 
> Model 2B provide. But, unfortunately, that's Model 3 does not provide 
> uniformity; Model 3 provide great differentiation of protection, with 
> only private individuals being protected, and not the political, 
> sexual, religious, educational groups that I discussed in one of my 
> recent emails - the array of groups that we protect engaged in huge 
> amount of controversial and critical speech and services. *The ICANN 
> Model 3 here is very clear: *"*Display unless field includes personal 
> data." (ICANN's Proposed Interim Models for Compliance, pages 
> 12-14).*? Thus, for noncommercial organizations, exposure of 
> Registrant/Admin/Tech name, address, phone and email will remain 
> completely open. Model 2B and ECO do better and protect legal and 
> natural persons. That's hugely important - and a tribute to our years 
> of work on this subject!
>
> No, Model 3 does not have the registrant name. Check your facts, 
> please. I don?t think there is anything wrong with having the tech 
> contacts name, but here I agree with you that the4re is room for 
> discussion and debate about which data elements could be made public 
> and which couldn?t. That is why it is so unfortunate that the people 
> we had working on this issue dropped the ball and put us in a position 
> to have to hurriedly develop a position on this. It is also a reason 
> why it is bad to have these critical policy diuscussions hidden on the 
> PC list and not taking place before the membership.
>
> 3."No tiered access solution that involves establishing new criteria 
> for access can feasibly be created in the next 3 months."? ==> We are 
> unlikely to go from infinite public access to completely restricted 
> private access right now. The Multistakeholder Process won't support 
> that. But the ECO model does a lot to help on this particular issue. 
> I'll outline in my next email.
>
> So it sounds like you are agreeing that 2B is _/not/_ an option. Again 
> we are in violent agreement.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180130/f06e7ffc/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan 30 21:17:14 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:17:14 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmdtx2CC6T7HzVEBN6dfBZJUMG_eS97mA-uSXOFwauc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmdtx2CC6T7HzVEBN6dfBZJUMG_eS97mA-uSXOFwauc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <81HLM3kStXQyXoW2ICVaXgwQdNpq2SnF7r_lU4HJ-7piX_SfZgysfJBxW8I698kvApotlqJBAM5KAR2Cd31TXBHmRPd94O50RltTaHk3PS0=@ferdeline.com>

Hi, all-

The deadline for the submission of questions regarding the FY19 budget and operations plan is today. Unfortunately we do not have time to submit questions as the the NCSG before the deadline. I will email in some questions in my personal capacity to: planning at icann.org, and encourage you to do the same. The questions will all be posted publicly on the ICANN website (without the names of the sender attached to the question) and the answers will be  made public in mid-February. So the NCSG can rely on these responses too. I think this is the best path forward rather than trying to reach consensus on questions to submit today.

Best wishes,

Ayden F?rdeline

-------- Original Message --------
On 28 January 2018 6:17 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180130/f62e2034/attachment.htm>

From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com  Tue Jan 30 21:21:04 2018
From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:21:04 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <81HLM3kStXQyXoW2ICVaXgwQdNpq2SnF7r_lU4HJ-7piX_SfZgysfJBxW8I698kvApotlqJBAM5KAR2Cd31TXBHmRPd94O50RltTaHk3PS0=@ferdeline.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmdtx2CC6T7HzVEBN6dfBZJUMG_eS97mA-uSXOFwauc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <81HLM3kStXQyXoW2ICVaXgwQdNpq2SnF7r_lU4HJ-7piX_SfZgysfJBxW8I698kvApotlqJBAM5KAR2Cd31TXBHmRPd94O50RltTaHk3PS0=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <F489A04F-76C1-49CB-AD53-2C07E1C39624@gmail.com>

But the deadline for the comment itself is 8th of march, isn?t it?

I am thinking, we maybe should give once a year the ICANN Budget to a CFO that we can get our hands off, maybe a large organization friend of us can give us a professional opinion and give a fresh view from a more outsider/pro view. 

Cheers,
Mart?n


> On 30 Jan 2018, at 16:17, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all-
> 
> The deadline for the submission of questions regarding the FY19 budget and operations plan is today. Unfortunately we do not have time to submit questions as the the NCSG before the deadline. I will email in some questions in my personal capacity to: planning at icann.org <mailto:planning at icann.org>, and encourage you to do the same. The questions will all be posted publicly on the ICANN website (without the names of the sender attached to the question) and the answers will be  made public in mid-February. So the NCSG can rely on these responses too. I think this is the best path forward rather than trying to reach consensus on questions to submit today.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden F?rdeline 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 28 January 2018 6:17 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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 <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 <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 <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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180130/9ad6c6a5/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan 30 21:24:20 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:24:20 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Current public comments & request for inputs
In-Reply-To: <F489A04F-76C1-49CB-AD53-2C07E1C39624@gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnVW8+ndd+_9Q-chEgNy=D7XXXLtzVqbhUpj2ZX-Z42dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5sThmdtx2CC6T7HzVEBN6dfBZJUMG_eS97mA-uSXOFwauc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <81HLM3kStXQyXoW2ICVaXgwQdNpq2SnF7r_lU4HJ-7piX_SfZgysfJBxW8I698kvApotlqJBAM5KAR2Cd31TXBHmRPd94O50RltTaHk3PS0=@ferdeline.com>
 <F489A04F-76C1-49CB-AD53-2C07E1C39624@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gxEq1TMPkfd_DHLxTzkfoX2e4vkTsojn22SFgKntuWEdG19l45lGXjYBrqv3IdQN9uczhoTOzLMBTrUOwklo2C2-w0j5FNje49Is4TY2AHQ=@ferdeline.com>

Yes, the deadline for the final comment is in March. Today's deadline is just to ask clarifying questions. The NCSG Finance Committee would ideally take the lead on the drafting of this comment, and consult widely - perhaps with a CFO, like you suggest Martin - but in my opinion they are not yet mature enough to take on this responsibility, so we need to do it.

?Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 30 January 2018 7:21 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> But the deadline for the comment itself is 8th of march, isn?t it?
>
> I am thinking, we maybe should give once a year the ICANN Budget to a CFO that we can get our hands off, maybe a large organization friend of us can give us a professional opinion and give a fresh view from a more outsider/pro view.
>
> Cheers,
> Mart?n
>
>> On 30 Jan 2018, at 16:17, Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, all-
>>
>> The deadline for the submission of questions regarding the FY19 budget and operations plan is today. Unfortunately we do not have time to submit questions as the the NCSG before the deadline. I will email in some questions in my personal capacity to: planning at icann.org, and encourage you to do the same. The questions will all be posted publicly on the ICANN website (without the names of the sender attached to the question) and the answers will be  made public in mid-February. So the NCSG can rely on these responses too. I think this is the best path forward rather than trying to reach consensus on questions to submit today.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden F?rdeline
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> On 28 January 2018 6:17 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180130/3f6300a6/attachment.htm>

From icann at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan 30 21:29:49 2018
From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:29:49 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
 [#268]
In-Reply-To: <66.4E.26616.A355F6A5@a.plat1.surveymonkey.aws-usw2a.prd.sparkpost>
References: <66.4E.26616.A355F6A5@a.plat1.surveymonkey.aws-usw2a.prd.sparkpost>
Message-ID: <puV70g94b577iokDDaHyudQMPSB0gNL9hTKOYNnQ-M1MRMFiFbwOzSzGpCXA7RNG156PRvxfWGFjMxw4upbDSLqfzeTQycGI3QLUoCDIKpc=@ferdeline.com>

Syed is continuing to misrepresent himself on the GNSO Council as being a member of the NCSG; how do we deal with this? It is really not acceptable.

?Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 29 January 2018 5:09 PM, ICANN <no-reply at wufoo.com> wrote:

> Name of Officer: *
> Syed Ismail Shah
>
> Officer Email Address: *
> syedismailshah at gmail.com
>
> Date Prepared: *
> Monday, January 29, 2018
>
> GNSO Organization: *
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *
> GNSO Council Member: Nomcom appointee
> Voting Remedy: *
> Proxy
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *
> Will try to attend the meeting online. However, since I am travelling and may connectivity issues so to be on the safe side, I am using this remedy.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: *
> GNSO council meeting.
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] *	Sunday, February 4, 2018
>
> I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. *
> Yes
> Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). *
> No
> Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: *
> Heather Forrest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180130/b6b3bded/attachment.htm>

From arsenebaguma at gmail.com  Tue Jan 30 22:17:12 2018
From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:17:12 -0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN
 Meetings Strategy
Message-ID: <CABDXvWqCHB4Aag-41U5ndT0UjXvNXNUOJrh8O8MEXeQ2tBpWVg@mail.gmail.com>

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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180130/75528ad1/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Jan 30 23:57:48 2018
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 06:57:48 +0900
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO Council Abstention Notification
 Form [#268]
In-Reply-To: <puV70g94b577iokDDaHyudQMPSB0gNL9hTKOYNnQ-M1MRMFiFbwOzSzGpCXA7RNG156PRvxfWGFjMxw4upbDSLqfzeTQycGI3QLUoCDIKpc=@ferdeline.com>
References: <66.4E.26616.A355F6A5@a.plat1.surveymonkey.aws-usw2a.prd.sparkpost>
 <puV70g94b577iokDDaHyudQMPSB0gNL9hTKOYNnQ-M1MRMFiFbwOzSzGpCXA7RNG156PRvxfWGFjMxw4upbDSLqfzeTQycGI3QLUoCDIKpc=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk=NJhVETy4m5h8-YABG-xp9DT_ksWYEb+mzdfu_UOn=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I raised that in morning to Marika. the problem seems with the form itself
(here
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm)having
a required field with a selection list of current SG/C and not having a
choice fit for NCA.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-31 4:29 GMT+09:00 Ayden F?rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Syed is continuing to misrepresent himself on the GNSO Council as being a
> member of the NCSG; how do we deal with this? It is really not acceptable.
>
> ?Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 29 January 2018 5:09 PM, ICANN <no-reply at wufoo.com> wrote:
>
> Name of Officer: *
> Syed Ismail Shah
> Officer Email Address: *
> syedismailshah at gmail.com
> Date Prepared: *
> Monday, January 29, 2018
> GNSO Organization: *
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *
> GNSO Council Member: Nomcom appointee
> Voting Remedy: *
> Proxy
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *
> Will try to attend the meeting online. However, since I am travelling and
> may connectivity issues so to be on the safe side, I am using this remedy.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for
> which the remedy is being exercised: *
> GNSO council meeting.
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an
> email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] *
> Sunday, February 4, 2018
> I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at
> issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. *
> Yes
> Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). *
> No
> Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: *
> Heather Forrest
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180131/ced31ee0/attachment.htm>