From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 07:00:06 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 13:00:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] publi comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I accepted the edits from Ayden and the comment is quite straightforward, hearing no objection in coming hours, I will submit the comment. Thanks Best, Rafik Le jeu. 31 mai 2018 ? 17:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I have proposed some suggested edits to the CSC comment; trimming it down > to a single paragraph. I think we can keep this one short and simple. > Thanks! > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 31 May 2018 9:50 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > this is a reminder for reviewing public comments draft, the deadline for > CSC is 1st June > > Rafik > > > Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 07:40, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> we have 2 drafts for public comments for review: >> 1- CSC Review >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18Q0SDh97XsN0m8etdGGhVby1c_vYT3omJTaeymLbfKk/edit >> 2- RSSAC 2 review >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing >> both were shared in NCSG list for membership consultation. the former's >> deadline is the 1st June which means we have to finalize within this week. >> it is straightforward comments as we are not raising any specific concern. >> I am kindly asking the PC members to review and do any proof-reading of >> the drafts. >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Comment on CSC Charter review team initial report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Sun Jun 3 23:40:04 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 22:40:04 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] publi comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5A6694DA-422F-425B-9555-8BF8380C52D9@benin2point0.org> Thanks for that Ayden. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 31 May 2018, at 10:14, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I have proposed some suggested edits to the CSC comment; trimming it down to a single paragraph. I think we can keep this one short and simple. Thanks! > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 31 May 2018 9:50 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> this is a reminder for reviewing public comments draft, the deadline for CSC is 1st June >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 07:40, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : >> Hi all, >> >> we have 2 drafts for public comments for review: >> 1- CSC Review https://docs.google.com/document/d/18Q0SDh97XsN0m8etdGGhVby1c_vYT3omJTaeymLbfKk/edit >> 2- RSSAC 2 review https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing >> both were shared in NCSG list for membership consultation. the former's deadline is the 1st June which means we have to finalize within this week. it is straightforward comments as we are not raising any specific concern. >> I am kindly asking the PC members to review and do any proof-reading of the drafts. >> Best, >> >> Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Sun Jun 3 23:41:16 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 22:41:16 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG policy call prior to extraordinary council call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Raifk, Good idea. I am available. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 30 May 2018, at 00:47, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > hi all, > > councillors should have received the invite for the GNSO council extraordinary call for the 12th June. I am proposing to have an NCSG policy call in the 11th June so we can prepare. there won't be a motion to vote per se but we need to get a common understanding of what we should agree on. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 19:09:17 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:09:17 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Interviews at ICANN 62 Message-ID: Letting you know that ICANN approached me about interviewing a member about NCSG atICANN 62, I thought Tatiana would be great for this, so I have forwarded her name. We might have one more interview slot so let me know if you want to be interviewed. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 08:12:40 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:12:40 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] public comment review Message-ID: Hi all, we have currently the draft comment for RSSAC 2 review to be reviewed soon as submission date is the 10th June https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing I am kindly asking the PC members to review and do a proof-reading of the draft this week. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jun 5 15:45:17 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:45:17 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] public comment review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C310700-3531-4DB2-9444-FE01F2ADA4D5@benin2point0.org> Hello, I took a look already and made some comments. It looks good to me. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 5 Jun 2018, at 07:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > we have currently the draft comment for RSSAC 2 review to be reviewed soon as submission date is the 10th June https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing > I am kindly asking the PC members to review and do a proof-reading of the draft this week. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 17:23:49 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:23:49 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] public comment review In-Reply-To: <9C310700-3531-4DB2-9444-FE01F2ADA4D5@benin2point0.org> References: <9C310700-3531-4DB2-9444-FE01F2ADA4D5@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: This looks good for me. Thanks, A ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) 2018-06-05 14:45 GMT+02:00 Farell FOLLY : > Hello, > > I took a look already and made some comments. It looks good to me. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > On 5 Jun 2018, at 07:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > we have currently the draft comment for RSSAC 2 review to be reviewed soon > as submission date is the 10th June https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing > > I am kindly asking the PC members to review and do a proof-reading of the > draft this week. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 17:57:23 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 23:57:23 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi all, the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some input this week. Best, Rafik Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I > am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be > helpful. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > >> I think so... >> >> Steph >> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Should we respond as the NCSG? >> >> -- Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >> wrote: >> >> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >> >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> >> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. >> The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all >> discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> GNSO Council leadership team >> >> >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >> >> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >> >> >> >> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >> >> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> . * >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 7 12:06:22 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 05:06:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published In-Reply-To: References: <365ff94fe6e54018a434ffea0a5b70a5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <0d5f01d3fe12$b43e13f0$1cba3bd0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: Hopefully this was just an oversight and not intentional. If not corrected, we might have to write another letter -- our comments are not being included in the staff reports of public comments if they cut against the grain, while those supporting the staff recommendations are in there... Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 7 June 2018 12:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks for sharing this, Berry. > > I have now reviewed the report of public comments and it seems to have thoroughly captured the comments of the GNSO Council. > > Unfortunately, it did not capture the comments of the NCSG in a comprehensive manner, ignoring the NCSG's comment altogether that we oppose the use of auction proceeds to replenish the reserve fund, while including comments from the ccNSO that were favourable towards the use of this resource. The NCSG's request that moving forward a quarterly update be provided so that the community can see how decisions made in relation to the Reserve Fund are being delivered was also not included. > > I am not sure how this report is compiled, or how staff determine what comments to include or not, but a complete report, in my opinion, is one which includes all comments submitted in good faith. I would encourage others to review this report of public comments and to take inventory of what comments from your constituency/stakeholder group have been included (or not included). I do hope the omission of some comments was just an oversight. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 7 June 2018 6:50 AM, wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> FYI, the Report of Public comments for the Reserve Fund Replenishment is now available for review. >> >> Thank you. >> >> B >> >> Berry A. Cobb >> >> 720.839.5735 >> >> mail at berrycobb.com >> >> @berrycobb >> >> From: community-finance [mailto:community-finance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Planning >> Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 19:54 >> To: community-finance at icann.org >> Subject: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published >> >> We wanted to inform you that the ICANN organization?s Report of Public Comments on the Reserve Fund Proposed Replenishment Strategy has been published. Included in the publication is a summary of the replenishment strategy responses from each commenter (section IV additional information). >> >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en >> >> The ICANN org has received valuable and substantive comments from the public comment proceeding and wishes to thank everyone for your contributions in this important planning process. >> >> Shani Quidwai >> >> ICANN- Director, Financial Planning and Analysis >> >> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >> >> Los Angeles, CA 90064 >> >> Mobile: (310) 804-7684 >> >> Office: (310) 578-8664 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 12:08:41 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:08:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published In-Reply-To: References: <365ff94fe6e54018a434ffea0a5b70a5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <0d5f01d3fe12$b43e13f0$1cba3bd0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I will reach Xavier to raise that. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 7 juin 2018 ? 18:06, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hopefully this was just an oversight and not intentional. If not > corrected, we might have to write another letter -- our comments are not > being included in the staff reports of public comments if they cut against > the grain, while those supporting the staff recommendations are in there... > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 7 June 2018 12:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks for sharing this, Berry. > > I have now reviewed the report of public comments and it seems to have > thoroughly captured the comments of the GNSO Council. > > Unfortunately, it did not capture the comments of the NCSG in a > comprehensive manner, ignoring the NCSG's comment altogether that we oppose > the use of auction proceeds to replenish the reserve fund, while including > comments from the ccNSO that were favourable towards the use of this > resource. The NCSG's request that moving forward a quarterly update be > provided so that the community can see how decisions made in relation to > the Reserve Fund are being delivered was also not included. > > I am not sure how this report is compiled, or how staff determine what > comments to include or not, but a complete report, in my opinion, is one > which includes all comments submitted in good faith. I would encourage > others to review this report of public comments and to take inventory of > what comments from your constituency/stakeholder group have been included > (or not included). I do hope the omission of some comments was just an > oversight. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 7 June 2018 6:50 AM, wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > FYI, the Report of Public comments for the Reserve Fund Replenishment is > now available for review. > > > > Thank you. > > > > B > > > > Berry A. Cobb > > 720.839.5735 > > mail at berrycobb.com > > @berrycobb > > > > *From:* community-finance [mailto:community-finance-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Planning > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 6, 2018 19:54 > *To:* community-finance at icann.org > *Subject:* [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment > Strategy Public Comment Report Published > > > > We wanted to inform you that the ICANN organization?s Report of Public > Comments on the Reserve Fund Proposed Replenishment Strategy has been > published. Included in the publication is a summary of the replenishment > strategy responses from each commenter (section IV additional information). > > > > > > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en > > > > > > The ICANN org has received valuable and substantive comments from the > public comment proceeding and wishes to thank everyone for your > contributions in this important planning process. > > > > > > *Shani Quidwai* > > ICANN- Director, Financial Planning and Analysis > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90064 > > Mobile: (310) 804-7684 > > Office: (310) 578-8664 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 7 12:13:01 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 05:13:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published In-Reply-To: References: <365ff94fe6e54018a434ffea0a5b70a5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <0d5f01d3fe12$b43e13f0$1cba3bd0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik. Will be interesting to see, now that we have spotted this, how they do version control on the ICANN website... will they pretend nothing happened and just re-upload a new PDF, or keep this up for historical purposes and post an additional, corrected report? I think this is important, as I am often left wondering how ICANN staff analyse comments - now that they have published a report absent half our comments, and presumably it was published following some kind of internal review, will a revised report have *any* impact? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 7 June 2018 12:08 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I will reach Xavier to raise that. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 7 juin 2018 ? 18:06, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Hopefully this was just an oversight and not intentional. If not corrected, we might have to write another letter -- our comments are not being included in the staff reports of public comments if they cut against the grain, while those supporting the staff recommendations are in there... >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 7 June 2018 12:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Thanks for sharing this, Berry. >>> >>> I have now reviewed the report of public comments and it seems to have thoroughly captured the comments of the GNSO Council. >>> >>> Unfortunately, it did not capture the comments of the NCSG in a comprehensive manner, ignoring the NCSG's comment altogether that we oppose the use of auction proceeds to replenish the reserve fund, while including comments from the ccNSO that were favourable towards the use of this resource. The NCSG's request that moving forward a quarterly update be provided so that the community can see how decisions made in relation to the Reserve Fund are being delivered was also not included. >>> >>> I am not sure how this report is compiled, or how staff determine what comments to include or not, but a complete report, in my opinion, is one which includes all comments submitted in good faith. I would encourage others to review this report of public comments and to take inventory of what comments from your constituency/stakeholder group have been included (or not included). I do hope the omission of some comments was just an oversight. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 7 June 2018 6:50 AM, wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> FYI, the Report of Public comments for the Reserve Fund Replenishment is now available for review. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> B >>>> >>>> Berry A. Cobb >>>> >>>> 720.839.5735 >>>> >>>> mail at berrycobb.com >>>> >>>> @berrycobb >>>> >>>> From: community-finance [mailto:community-finance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Planning >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 19:54 >>>> To: community-finance at icann.org >>>> Subject: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published >>>> >>>> We wanted to inform you that the ICANN organization?s Report of Public Comments on the Reserve Fund Proposed Replenishment Strategy has been published. Included in the publication is a summary of the replenishment strategy responses from each commenter (section IV additional information). >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en >>>> >>>> The ICANN org has received valuable and substantive comments from the public comment proceeding and wishes to thank everyone for your contributions in this important planning process. >>>> >>>> Shani Quidwai >>>> >>>> ICANN- Director, Financial Planning and Analysis >>>> >>>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >>>> >>>> Los Angeles, CA 90064 >>>> >>>> Mobile: (310) 804-7684 >>>> >>>> Office: (310) 578-8664 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Thu Jun 7 20:25:39 2018 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:25:39 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published In-Reply-To: References: <365ff94fe6e54018a434ffea0a5b70a5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <0d5f01d3fe12$b43e13f0$1cba3bd0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: (observing) Hi, ATRT2 recommended, and the board accepted that there be a process by which people could get the synthesis reports updated if there were errors or omissions.? I do not know if this was ever done systematically (one of the reasons i am desperate to see ATRT3) but I think that people can send them comments on issues and get corrections. BTW, this would refer to comments in the comment period and not necessarily letters. avri Ps. While I am at it, the NCSG letter was discussed in detail, though no changes were made based on that conversation. On 07-Jun-18 05:06, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hopefully this was just an oversight and not intentional. If not > corrected, we might have to write another letter -- our comments are > not being included in the staff reports of public comments if they cut > against the grain, while those supporting the staff recommendations > are in there... > > Ayden?? > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 7 June 2018 12:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks for sharing this, Berry. >> >> I have now reviewed the report of public comments and it seems to >> have thoroughly captured the comments of the GNSO Council. >> >> Unfortunately, it did not capture the comments of the NCSG in a >> comprehensive manner, ignoring the NCSG's comment altogether that we >> oppose the use of auction proceeds to replenish the reserve fund, >> while including comments from the ccNSO that were favourable towards >> the use of this resource. The NCSG's request that moving forward a >> quarterly update be provided so that the community can see how >> decisions made in relation to the Reserve Fund are being delivered >> was also not included. >> >> I am not sure how this report is compiled, or how staff determine >> what comments to include or not, but a complete report, in my >> opinion, is one which includes all comments submitted in good faith. >> I would encourage others to review this report of public comments and >> to take inventory of what comments from your constituency/stakeholder >> group have been included (or not included). I do hope the omission of >> some comments was just an oversight. >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden F?rdeline? >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 7 June 2018 6:50 AM, wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> ? >>> >>> FYI, the Report of Public comments for the Reserve Fund >>> Replenishment is now available for review. >>> >>> ? >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> ? >>> >>> B >>> >>> ? >>> >>> Berry A. Cobb >>> >>> 720.839.5735 >>> >>> mail at berrycobb.com >>> >>> @berrycobb >>> >>> ? >>> >>> *From:*community-finance >>> [mailto:community-finance-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Planning >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 6, 2018 19:54 >>> *To:* community-finance at icann.org >>> *Subject:* [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed >>> Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published >>> >>> ? >>> >>> We wanted to inform you that the ICANN organization?s Report of >>> Public Comments on the Reserve Fund Proposed Replenishment Strategy >>> has been published.? Included in the publication is a summary of the >>> replenishment strategy responses from each commenter (section IV >>> additional information).? >>> >>> ? >>> >>> ? >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en >>> >>> ? >>> >>> ? >>> >>> The ICANN org has received valuable and substantive comments from >>> the public comment proceeding and wishes to thank everyone for your >>> contributions in this important planning process. >>> >>> ? >>> >>> ? >>> >>> *Shani Quidwai* >>> >>> ICANN- Director, Financial Planning and Analysis >>> >>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >>> >>> Los Angeles, CA 90064 >>> >>> Mobile: (310) 804-7684 >>> >>> Office: (310) 578-8664 >>> >>> ? >>> >>> ? >>> >>> ? >>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 12:52:34 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 18:52:34 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] public comment review In-Reply-To: References: <9C310700-3531-4DB2-9444-FE01F2ADA4D5@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: thanks, Arsene, Farell, looking to hear from other PC members. Rafik Le mar. 5 juin 2018 ? 23:23, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > This looks good for me. > Thanks, > A > > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum * > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > & Mexico > ) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > (Mauritius > > )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > > 2018-06-05 14:45 GMT+02:00 Farell FOLLY : > >> Hello, >> >> I took a look already and made some comments. It looks good to me. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5 Jun 2018, at 07:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> we have currently the draft comment for RSSAC 2 review to be reviewed >> soon as submission date is the 10th June >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing >> >> I am kindly asking the PC members to review and do a proof-reading of the >> draft this week. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Fri Jun 8 14:21:41 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:21:41 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] public comment review In-Reply-To: References: <9C310700-3531-4DB2-9444-FE01F2ADA4D5@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Dear Rafik, Good day, am totally fine with it also, supported +1 Kind Regards Poncelet On 8 June 2018 at 09:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > thanks, Arsene, Farell, looking to hear from other PC members. > > Rafik > > Le mar. 5 juin 2018 ? 23:23, Ars?ne Tungali a > ?crit : > >> This looks good for me. >> Thanks, >> A >> >> ------------------------ >> **Ars?ne Tungali* * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >> Forum * >> Tel: +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> >> & Mexico >> ) >> - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger >> - ICANN's GNSO Council >> Member. AFRINIC Fellow >> (Mauritius >> >> )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - >> Internet Freedom. >> >> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English >> ) and (French >> ) >> >> 2018-06-05 14:45 GMT+02:00 Farell FOLLY : >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I took a look already and made some comments. It looks good to me. >>> >>> @__f_f__ >>> >>> Best Regards >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>> www.africa2point0.org >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5 Jun 2018, at 07:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have currently the draft comment for RSSAC 2 review to be reviewed >>> soon as submission date is the 10th June https://docs.google.com/ >>> document/d/13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> I am kindly asking the PC members to review and do a proof-reading of >>> the draft this week. >>> >>> 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 > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Jun 9 17:19:50 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2018 10:19:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published In-Reply-To: References: <365ff94fe6e54018a434ffea0a5b70a5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <0d5f01d3fe12$b43e13f0$1cba3bd0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: Thanks Avri, great to hear that the Board did receive a copy of our letter! I believe Rafik has now reached out to Xavier to request the staff report be revised to include all of our comments on Reserve Fund replenishment. Best wishes, ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 7 June 2018 7:25 PM, avri doria wrote: > ?? > > (observing) > > Hi, > > ATRT2 recommended, and the board accepted that there be a process by > > which people could get the synthesis reports updated if there were > > errors or omissions.? I do not know if this was ever done systematically > > (one of the reasons i am desperate to see ATRT3) but I think that people > > can send them comments on issues and get corrections. > > BTW, this would refer to comments in the comment period and not > > necessarily letters. > > avri > > Ps. While I am at it, the NCSG letter was discussed in detail, though no > > changes were made based on that conversation. > > On 07-Jun-18 05:06, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > > Hopefully this was just an oversight and not intentional. If not > > > > corrected, we might have to write another letter -- our comments are > > > > not being included in the staff reports of public comments if they cut > > > > against the grain, while those supporting the staff recommendations > > > > are in there... > > > > Ayden > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > On 7 June 2018 12:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com wrote: > > > > > Thanks for sharing this, Berry. > > > > > > I have now reviewed the report of public comments and it seems to > > > > > > have thoroughly captured the comments of the GNSO Council. > > > > > > Unfortunately, it did not capture the comments of the NCSG in a > > > > > > comprehensive manner, ignoring the NCSG's comment altogether that we > > > > > > oppose the use of auction proceeds to replenish the reserve fund, > > > > > > while including comments from the ccNSO that were favourable towards > > > > > > the use of this resource. The NCSG's request that moving forward a > > > > > > quarterly update be provided so that the community can see how > > > > > > decisions made in relation to the Reserve Fund are being delivered > > > > > > was also not included. > > > > > > I am not sure how this report is compiled, or how staff determine > > > > > > what comments to include or not, but a complete report, in my > > > > > > opinion, is one which includes all comments submitted in good faith. > > > > > > I would encourage others to review this report of public comments and > > > > > > to take inventory of what comments from your constituency/stakeholder > > > > > > group have been included (or not included). I do hope the omission of > > > > > > some comments was just an oversight. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Ayden F?rdeline > > > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > > > On 7 June 2018 6:50 AM, mail at berrycobb.com wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > FYI, the Report of Public comments for the Reserve Fund > > > > > > > > Replenishment is now available for review. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > B > > > > > > > > Berry A. Cobb > > > > > > > > 720.839.5735 > > > > > > > > mail at berrycobb.com mailto:mail at berrycobb.com > > > > > > > > @berrycobb > > > > > > > > *From:*community-finance > > > > > > > > [mailto:community-finance-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Planning > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 19:54 > > > > > > > > To: community-finance at icann.org > > > > > > > > Subject: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed > > > > > > > > Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published > > > > > > > > We wanted to inform you that the ICANN organization?s Report of > > > > > > > > Public Comments on the Reserve Fund Proposed Replenishment Strategy > > > > > > > > has been published.? Included in the publication is a summary of the > > > > > > > > replenishment strategy responses from each commenter (section IV > > > > > > > > additional information). > > > > > > > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en > > > > > > > > The ICANN org has received valuable and substantive comments from > > > > > > > > the public comment proceeding and wishes to thank everyone for your > > > > > > > > contributions in this important planning process. > > > > > > > > Shani Quidwai > > > > > > > > ICANN- Director, Financial Planning and Analysis > > > > > > > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > > > > > > > Los Angeles, CA 90064 > > > > > > > > Mobile: (310) 804-7684 > > > > > > > > Office: (310) 578-8664 > > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Jun 9 23:16:14 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:16:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some input this week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be helpful. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >> >>> I think so... >>> >>> Steph >>> >>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>> >>>> -- Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sending on behalf of the Council leadership >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>> >>>>> Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> >>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>> >>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4.3 Complexity of Subject Matter - AF addition.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 13312 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jun 10 00:10:13 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2018 17:10:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment Message-ID: Hi all, So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs vis-a-vis [this comment](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en) on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment on this issue. I could find a personal [comment from Avri](https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html) back in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com (number zero)? I think they could... Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jun 10 01:32:28 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2018 18:32:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines Message-ID: I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 03:16:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:16:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Ayden, I am asking kindly all PC members to review the draft so we can share it in NCSG list within 1 week. Best, Rafik Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 07:32, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel > Support Guidelines: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing > > The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but > please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that > we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). > > Best wishes, Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 03:31:46 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:31:46 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. I think 0.com is still reserved as in the same process that reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if 0.com is requested to be removed from the reserved list. for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. Best, Rafik Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi all, > > So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs > vis-a-vis this comment > > on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some > time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a > comment on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri > back in > 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? > > Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of > O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am > opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an > idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome > programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN > community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put > aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. > > Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com > (number zero)? I think they could... > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 03:35:17 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:35:17 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to Panama meeting. Best, Rafik Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have > attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity > of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit > this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG > position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? > > ?Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some > input this week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I >> am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be >> helpful. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >> >>> I think so... >>> >>> Steph >>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>> >>> -- Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>> wrote: >>> >>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. >>> The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all >>> discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> GNSO Council leadership team >>> >>> >>> >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>> >>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>> >>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> . * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 15:09:46 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 21:09:46 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] public comment review In-Reply-To: References: <9C310700-3531-4DB2-9444-FE01F2ADA4D5@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi all, the deadline for submission for RSSAC public comment is today, in absence of strong objection I will submit the attached comment. Best, Rafik Le ven. 8 juin 2018 ? 20:21, Poncelet Ileleji a ?crit : > Dear Rafik, > > Good day, am totally fine with it also, supported +1 > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 8 June 2018 at 09:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> thanks, Arsene, Farell, looking to hear from other PC members. >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 5 juin 2018 ? 23:23, Ars?ne Tungali a >> ?crit : >> >>> This looks good for me. >>> Thanks, >>> A >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> **Ars?ne Tungali* * >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>> *, >>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >>> Forum * >>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>> >>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>> >>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>> >>> & Mexico >>> ) >>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>> Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council >>> Member. AFRINIC >>> Fellow (Mauritius >>> >>> )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - >>> Internet Freedom. >>> >>> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English >>> ) and (French >>> ) >>> >>> 2018-06-05 14:45 GMT+02:00 Farell FOLLY : >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I took a look already and made some comments. It looks good to me. >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 Jun 2018, at 07:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we have currently the draft comment for RSSAC 2 review to be reviewed >>>> soon as submission date is the 10th June >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> I am kindly asking the PC members to review and do a proof-reading of >>>> the draft this week. >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review - NCSG Comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 91231 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Sun Jun 10 16:23:42 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:23:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I've added some text to our comment on the proposed?Community Travel > Support Guidelines: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing > > The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, > but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits > so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jun 10 16:32:58 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:32:58 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks Kathy, great edits! Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! > > On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel Support Guidelines: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 23:43:40 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:43:40 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council Message-ID: All, It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing applications since I will apply for the position. NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate the representative. Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide the candidate you want to recommend to the board: 4. PIR Representative: a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, NCUC-appointees, PC members). b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or NCSG mailing lists. d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. C.Review and selection of candidates 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? applications. 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 02:03:17 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:03:17 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, Thanks for the note. I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set the timeline for this appointment. Best, Rafik Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > All, > > It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the > Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not > get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing > applications since I will apply for the position. > > NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest > using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. > > Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the slate > of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate the > representative. > > Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that > since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide > the candidate you want to recommend to the board: > > 4. PIR Representative: > a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the past > (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, > NCUC-appointees, PC members). > b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who > understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. > c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or NCSG > mailing lists. > d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public > Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public > Interest Registry discussions and debates. > > C.Review and selection of candidates > > 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. > > 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. > > 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one candidate > is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not selected > for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing them of > the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or where otherwise > appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can > increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. > > 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be > arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? > applications. > > 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially > but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. > > 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the > transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. > > Best > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 18:59:34 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:59:34 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process In-Reply-To: <5EC56FB2-AFB2-435F-88EA-E8478B1DDC28@davecake.net> References: <5EC56FB2-AFB2-435F-88EA-E8478B1DDC28@davecake.net> Message-ID: Thanks David. CSG got back to us and they are happy with the procedure as is with a minor change in the document I have attached. We need to discuss this in more detail. On the one hand, we cannot change CSG internal procedure. How would we feel if they wanted to change our internal procedure? On the other hand what you are raising has been an issue within the community. As to NCA, NCA has an advisory role anyhow in the council as well.If it doesn't provide an advantage (and let's face it, sometimes NCAs would work against us or would work against both NCSG and CSG) then why not keep the role advisory? I am not disagreeing. I am just putting these questions out there for the veterans to tell us why we should not accept the procedure as is. When I was at the WT on GNSO bylaws changes, we insisted on giving NCA a role in the empowered community when it came to appointments. This was because as we argued, NCA could take you out of a deadlock. We argued the same here, but CSG did not accept the argument. Considering that NomCom appointments recently to the GNSO have been almost disasterous (for example they appointed a government person to GNSO!!) I wonder if we want them fully involved with the process. We might continue this discussion with CSG depending on the feedback I receive here, so please keep the feedback coming, but please also provide solutions that can be a middle way of what they want and what we want. Farzaneh On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:30 PM, David Cake wrote: > My apologies for taking a while to comment on this. > > I admit to disliking this draft, it has significantly changed from the old > procedure and none of the changes seem positive to me. > > The NCA is effectively rendered irrelevant. Included as an adviser is > meaningless, as far as I can tell. While the NCA offers no particular > advantage to NCSG, I think it is a definite step back in terms of creating > an open procedure. . > > And it effectively removes the vote of individual councillors entirely. > NCSG only reluctantly adopted binding councillors individual votes as a > counter tactic to the CSG, and this procedure enshrines that permanently, > effectively saying there is no hope that the CSG will have any internal > democracy, so we shouldn?t bother with the potential for it. And it > entirely lacks any procedure for coming to an outcome if full consensus > can?t be found, other than rinse and repeat. > > If it was to be adopted, we would at least need a new procedure to > determine how leadership consensus will be determined, if there is a > minority opinion. > > David > > > On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:31 am, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > all > > here is the second draft of board appointment procedure. CSG accepted NCA > to be involved with the process but have an advisory role. It also accepted > to have elections but vote as a block (NCSG and CSG) > > > Let me know what you think. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN 61.revised. Board seat 14[1][1].docx_WUKedit.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20454 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 11 19:14:36 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:14:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process In-Reply-To: References: <5EC56FB2-AFB2-435F-88EA-E8478B1DDC28@davecake.net> Message-ID: Thanks very much for sharing this, Farzaneh. Please find attached some suggested edits. In particular, I would like to broadly define what information should be contained within the Statement of Interest sought from each candidate. There is no implied criticism here (to be clear, I am not suggesting that past statements were inadequate) - just wanting to make sure we capture certain information in the future in the interest of transparency. I have also re-worded one sentence to do with the NCSG consulting with members - all the CSG needs to know is we come to a consensus as a stakeholder group, how is up to us... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 11 June 2018 5:59 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Thanks David. > > CSG got back to us and they are happy with the procedure as is with a minor change in the document I have attached. > > We need to discuss this in more detail. On the one hand, we cannot change CSG internal procedure. How would we feel if they wanted to change our internal procedure? On the other hand what you are raising has been an issue within the community. > > As to NCA, NCA has an advisory role anyhow in the council as well.If it doesn't provide an advantage (and let's face it, sometimes NCAs would work against us or would work against both NCSG and CSG) then why not keep the role advisory? > > I am not disagreeing. I am just putting these questions out there for the veterans to tell us why we should not accept the procedure as is. > > When I was at the WT on GNSO bylaws changes, we insisted on giving NCA a role in the empowered community when it came to appointments. This was because as we argued, NCA could take you out of a deadlock. We argued the same here, but CSG did not accept the argument. Considering that NomCom appointments recently to the GNSO have been almost disasterous (for example they appointed a government person to GNSO!!) I wonder if we want them fully involved with the process. > > We might continue this discussion with CSG depending on the feedback I receive here, so please keep the feedback coming, but please also provide solutions that can be a middle way of what they want and what we want. > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:30 PM, David Cake wrote: > >> My apologies for taking a while to comment on this. >> >> I admit to disliking this draft, it has significantly changed from the old procedure and none of the changes seem positive to me. >> >> The NCA is effectively rendered irrelevant. Included as an adviser is meaningless, as far as I can tell. While the NCA offers no particular advantage to NCSG, I think it is a definite step back in terms of creating an open procedure. . >> >> And it effectively removes the vote of individual councillors entirely. NCSG only reluctantly adopted binding councillors individual votes as a counter tactic to the CSG, and this procedure enshrines that permanently, effectively saying there is no hope that the CSG will have any internal democracy, so we shouldn?t bother with the potential for it. And it entirely lacks any procedure for coming to an outcome if full consensus can?t be found, other than rinse and repeat. >> >> If it was to be adopted, we would at least need a new procedure to determine how leadership consensus will be determined, if there is a minority opinion. >> >> David >> >>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:31 am, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> all >>> >>> here is the second draft of board appointment procedure. CSG accepted NCA to be involved with the process but have an advisory role. It also accepted to have elections but vote as a block (NCSG and CSG) >>> >>> Let me know what you think. >>> >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN 61.revised. Board seat 14[1][1].docx_WUKedit - AF edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19395 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 11 19:58:36 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:58:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please feel free to suggest revisions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > Thanks for the note. > I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set the timeline for this appointment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > >> All, >> >> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing applications since I will apply for the position. >> >> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >> >> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate the representative. >> >> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >> >> 4. PIR Representative: >> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, NCUC-appointees, PC members). >> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or NCSG mailing lists. >> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >> >> C.Review and selection of candidates >> >> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >> >> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >> >> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >> >> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? applications. >> >> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >> >> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 20:08:18 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:08:18 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Ayden, The draft seems reasonable and efficient. Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is applying. Cheers, Mart?n > On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please feel free to suggest revisions: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing > > ?Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> Thanks for the note. >> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set the timeline for this appointment. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : >> All, >> >> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing applications since I will apply for the position. >> >> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >> >> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate the representative. >> >> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >> >> 4. PIR Representative: >> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, NCUC-appointees, PC members). >> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or NCSG mailing lists. >> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >> >> C.Review and selection of candidates >> >> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >> >> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >> >> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >> >> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? applications. >> >> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >> >> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 11 20:14:41 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:14:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, as PC Chair. - Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Ayden, > The draft seems reasonable and efficient. > > Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is applying. > > Cheers, > Mart?n > >> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please feel free to suggest revisions: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing >> >> ?Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Farzaneh, >>> >>> Thanks for the note. >>> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set the timeline for this appointment. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing applications since I will apply for the position. >>>> >>>> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >>>> >>>> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate the representative. >>>> >>>> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >>>> >>>> 4. PIR Representative: >>>> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, NCUC-appointees, PC members). >>>> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >>>> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or NCSG mailing lists. >>>> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >>>> >>>> C.Review and selection of candidates >>>> >>>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >>>> >>>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >>>> >>>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >>>> >>>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? applications. >>>> >>>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >>>> >>>> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 11 20:32:49 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:32:49 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I think we could share this with the NCSG list? -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Kathy, great edits! > > Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >> >> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel Support Guidelines: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 20:35:49 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:35:49 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: I agree, is ready to move it forward. Best, Mart?n > On 11 Jun 2018, at 14:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I think we could share this with the NCSG list? > > -Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >>> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >>> >>> >>> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel Support Guidelines: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 11 20:45:45 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:45:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is possible. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. > so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to Panama meeting. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >> >> ?Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some input this week. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be helpful. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> I think so... >>>>> >>>>> Steph >>>>> >>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sending on behalf of the Council leadership >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 22:44:57 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:44:57 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Couse @ IAPP References: Message-ID: <120AC70C-E1DE-484A-A9F7-0E7CC174F25A@gmail.com> Dear all, Here goes something I would like to bring up during tomorrows call, in case no one oppose to it. I was listening to todays morning call on the essential and difficult need to spread quickly more training among our icann colleagues on how GDPR works (not awareness, but actual skills to debate policy), specially on the stubborn head of American lawyers unwilling to immerse in what reality already brings, partially because is a strategy to avoid new policy, and partially because they choose to ignore something foreign by default (I guess is something natural from the US perspective). In any case, I think that just a a two hours webinar, regardless of the amazing people we have on board, we could use an already strong program that is deep enough to give meaningful knowledge, but is not overwhelming to learn in the next weeks. I found this ?Get GDPR Ready? https://iapp.org/train/gdprready Course of International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP ). The course comes from a third party that is part of the INTA, so we are not proposing IPC to listen to South American liberal rads, but colleges from their own feud. On the other hand, the course is qualified for ?Certified Information Privacy Professional /Europe?, which gives both legitimacy and some sort of credit afterwards. The course is not cheap, at least not for ICANN community members, so I think it would be ideal if ICANN strikes some sort of deal to have this course open, not in ICANN times, but in EPDP times!!! I know Sam Pfeifle, IAPP Content Director, is the person who did the presentation of this matter at INTA 2018, and I heard good thing about it. If INTA could strike a deal, ICANN should too. I think this is the right track to bring a game changer element to the EPDP debate, a fast track training by trusted party already set-up to implement tomorrow. Disclosure, I have attended as guest some IAPP events at Argentina, usually at some big trademark law firm, but I have no direct nor indirect relationship, nor-whatsoever, with them. Cheers, Mart?n -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 11 22:48:54 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:48:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Couse @ IAPP In-Reply-To: <120AC70C-E1DE-484A-A9F7-0E7CC174F25A@gmail.com> References: <120AC70C-E1DE-484A-A9F7-0E7CC174F25A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, please raise this Martin. Everyone should have to take this course unless they can demonstrate that they received either a recognised award for their work in privacy and/or data protection OR have written or overseen the development of a privacy and/or data protection law. I like the idea that EPDP members must take an exam to demonstrate that some of the knowledge has sunk in and they haven't zoned out while sitting in the classroom. I believe ICANN should pay the course and exam fee for EPDP members who do not yet hold this certification. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 11 June 2018 9:44 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Dear all, > Here goes something I would like to bring up during tomorrows call, in case no one oppose to it. I was listening to todays morning call on the essential and difficult need to spread quickly more training among our icann colleagues on how GDPR works (not awareness, but actual skills to debate policy), specially on the stubborn head of American lawyers unwilling to immerse in what reality already brings, partially because is a strategy to avoid new policy, and partially because they choose to ignore something foreign by default (I guess is something natural from the US perspective). > In any case, I think that just a a two hours webinar, regardless of the amazing people we have on board, we could use an already strong program that is deep enough to give meaningful knowledge, but is not overwhelming to learn in the next weeks. I found this ?Get GDPR Ready? https://iapp.org/train/gdprready Course of International Association of Privacy Professionals ([IAPP](https://iapp.org/)). The course comes from a third party that is part of the INTA, so we are not proposing IPC to listen to South American liberal rads, but colleges from their own feud. On the other hand, the course is qualified for ?Certified Information Privacy Professional /Europe?, which gives both legitimacy and some sort of credit afterwards. > The course is not cheap, at least not for ICANN community members, so I think it would be ideal if ICANN strikes some sort of deal to have this course open, not in ICANN times, but in EPDP times!!! I know Sam Pfeifle, IAPP Content Director, is the person who did the presentation of this matter at INTA 2018, and I heard good thing about it. If INTA could strike a deal, ICANN should too. I think this is the right track to bring a game changer element to the EPDP debate, a fast track training by trusted party already set-up to implement tomorrow. > Disclosure, I have attended as guest some IAPP events at Argentina, usually at some big trademark law firm, but I have no direct nor indirect relationship, nor-whatsoever, with them. > > Cheers, > Mart?n -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 23:29:55 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 22:29:55 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Message-ID: The procedures look great! These are to be followed thoroughly if there is enough time, i guess. I don?t know how long we have to submit the names to the PIR Board. And agree with the PC Chair to coordinate this process, if available. While waiting to know the timeline, are we soon sharing this document to the membership to receive inputs from them? ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, as PC Chair. > > - Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> >> Ayden, >> The draft seems reasonable and efficient. >> >> Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is applying. >> >> Cheers, >> Mart?n >> >>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please feel free to suggest revisions: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> ?Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the note. >>>> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set the timeline for this appointment. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>>> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing applications since I will apply for the position. >>>>> >>>>> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >>>>> >>>>> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate the representative. >>>>> >>>>> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >>>>> >>>>> 4. PIR Representative: >>>>> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, NCUC-appointees, PC members). >>>>> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >>>>> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or NCSG mailing lists. >>>>> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >>>>> >>>>> C.Review and selection of candidates >>>>> >>>>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >>>>> >>>>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >>>>> >>>>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? applications. >>>>> >>>>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >>>>> >>>>> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 01:49:55 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:49:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. Best. Rafik On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is possible. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ayden, I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to Panama meeting. Best, Rafik Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have > attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity > of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit > this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG > position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? > > ?Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some > input this week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I >> am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be >> helpful. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin > utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >> >>> I think so... >>> >>> Steph >>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>> >>> -- Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>> wrote: >>> >>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. >>> The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all >>> discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> GNSO Council leadership team >>> >>> >>> >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>> >>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>> >>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> . * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 03:55:59 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:55:59 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks again for the draft. as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be tidy-up first before as second round of review or comments. after that, we can share it in NCSG list. Best, Rafik Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 02:33, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did > not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but > all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The > comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I > think we could share this with the NCSG list? > > -Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks Kathy, great edits! > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! > > On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel > Support Guidelines: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing > > The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but > please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that > we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 04:14:57 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:14:57 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Ayden for the draft, I made some comments there and tweaks. we can finalize it this week if all PC members chime in and review asap. with regard to the process, PC can work on drafting and document it then the documentation will be subject to NCSG EC review, we don't need to have wide consultation on this as by the charter. yes, I can coordinate the process. Best, Rafik ps after this we will come back to the discussion about PC procedures , that was in pause for months now. Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 05:30, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > The procedures look great! These are to be followed thoroughly if there is > enough time, i guess. I don?t know how long we have to submit the names to > the PIR Board. > > And agree with the PC Chair to coordinate this process, if available. > > While waiting to know the timeline, are we soon sharing this document to > the membership to receive inputs from them? > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, as > PC Chair. > > - Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > Ayden, > The draft seems reasonable and efficient. > > Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is > applying. > > Cheers, > Mart?n > > On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of > candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please > feel free to suggest revisions: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing > > ?Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Farzaneh, > > Thanks for the note. > I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and > adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to > evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by > when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set > the timeline for this appointment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> All, >> >> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the >> Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not >> get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing >> applications since I will apply for the position. >> >> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest >> using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >> >> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the slate >> of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate the >> representative. >> >> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that >> since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide >> the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >> >> 4. PIR Representative: >> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the >> past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, >> NCUC-appointees, PC members). >> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who >> understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or >> NCSG mailing lists. >> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public >> Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public >> Interest Registry discussions and debates. >> >> C.Review and selection of candidates >> >> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >> >> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >> >> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one candidate >> is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not selected >> for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing them of >> the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or where otherwise >> appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can >> increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >> >> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be >> arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? >> applications. >> >> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially >> but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >> >> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the >> transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 04:52:41 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:52:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Proposed Next Steps re: GNSO Council's New Roles and Responsibilities Outlined in the Post-Transition Bylaws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi , the staff sent reminder about next steps for GNSO new roles and responsabilities due to the ICANN accountability changes. I am fine with the staff listed actions with regard to guidelines, templates but they are also asking if we want to reinstate the bylaws drafting team. so I am asking @Farzaneh who was member if she thinks it is good idea to have the drafting team to work on that or just let the staff doing it. I am personally leaning for tasking the staff to do the it but lloking to hear others. at the end the work will come back to council to make decision and approve it. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Julie Hedlund Date: mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 04:24 Subject: [council] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Proposed Next Steps re: GNSO Council's New Roles and Responsibilities Outlined in the Post-Transition Bylaws To: council at gnso.icann.org Dear All, Per the message below, this is a reminder to review the proposed next steps to be taken as outlined in the attached table to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws. Staff is seeking feedback on whether the Council is supportive of these proposed next steps or whether modifications should be considered. Please note also that unless there are objections, staff could begin to work on the various templates that are identified in the attached table. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director *From: *council on behalf of Julie Hedlund *Date: *Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 10:34 AM *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" *Subject: *[council] FOR REVIEW: Proposed Next Steps re: GNSO Council's New Roles and Responsibilities Outlined in the Post-Transition Bylaws Dear All, Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, as well as the proposed modifications to the ICANN Bylaws adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on 13 May, staff has outlined in the attached table the additional proposed steps to be taken to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws. The GNSO Council is requested to review the proposed next steps and to provide feedback whether it is supportive of these proposed next steps or whether modifications should be considered. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Operational Procedures Template & Guidance List 15 May 2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 221543 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4630 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 08:45:37 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:45:37 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Proposed Next Steps re: GNSO Council's New Roles and Responsibilities Outlined in the Post-Transition Bylaws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51C25A6A-A702-41AE-BD95-88616050FFD6@gmail.com> I share your sentiment that staff should do it and have Council review and approve. Unless the drafting team has enough time, aside from everything else going on now. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 12, 2018, at 3:52 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi , > > the staff sent reminder about next steps for GNSO new roles and responsabilities due to the ICANN accountability changes. > I am fine with the staff listed actions with regard to guidelines, templates but they are also asking if we want to reinstate the bylaws drafting team. so I am asking > @Farzaneh who was member if she thinks it is good idea to have the drafting team to work on that or just let the staff doing it. I am personally leaning for tasking the staff to do the it but lloking to hear others. > at the end the work will come back to council to make decision and approve it. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Julie Hedlund > Date: mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 04:24 > Subject: [council] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Proposed Next Steps re: GNSO Council's New Roles and Responsibilities Outlined in the Post-Transition Bylaws > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > Dear All, > > > > Per the message below, this is a reminder to review the proposed next steps to be taken as outlined in the attached table to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws. Staff is seeking feedback on whether the Council is supportive of these proposed next steps or whether modifications should be considered. > > > > Please note also that unless there are objections, staff could begin to work on the various templates that are identified in the attached table. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > From: council on behalf of Julie Hedlund > Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 10:34 AM > To: "council at gnso.icann.org" > Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW: Proposed Next Steps re: GNSO Council's New Roles and Responsibilities Outlined in the Post-Transition Bylaws > > > > Dear All, > > > > Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, as well as the proposed modifications to the ICANN Bylaws adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on 13 May, staff has outlined in the attached table the additional proposed steps to be taken to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws. > > > > The GNSO Council is requested to review the proposed next steps and to provide feedback whether it is supportive of these proposed next steps or whether modifications should be considered. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jun 12 10:22:14 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:22:14 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GDPR Couse @ IAPP In-Reply-To: References: <120AC70C-E1DE-484A-A9F7-0E7CC174F25A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75351B32-E3B5-4311-8F20-78C4BB779D0E@benin2point0.org> Hello Martin, It is a very good idea. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 11 Jun 2018, at 21:48, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Yes, please raise this Martin. > > Everyone should have to take this course unless they can demonstrate that they received either a recognised award for their work in privacy and/or data protection OR have written or overseen the development of a privacy and/or data protection law. > > I like the idea that EPDP members must take an exam to demonstrate that some of the knowledge has sunk in and they haven't zoned out while sitting in the classroom. > > I believe ICANN should pay the course and exam fee for EPDP members who do not yet hold this certification. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 June 2018 9:44 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > >> Dear all, >> Here goes something I would like to bring up during tomorrows call, in case no one oppose to it. I was listening to todays morning call on the essential and difficult need to spread quickly more training among our icann colleagues on how GDPR works (not awareness, but actual skills to debate policy), specially on the stubborn head of American lawyers unwilling to immerse in what reality already brings, partially because is a strategy to avoid new policy, and partially because they choose to ignore something foreign by default (I guess is something natural from the US perspective). >> In any case, I think that just a a two hours webinar, regardless of the amazing people we have on board, we could use an already strong program that is deep enough to give meaningful knowledge, but is not overwhelming to learn in the next weeks. I found this ?Get GDPR Ready? https://iapp.org/train/gdprready Course of International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP ). The course comes from a third party that is part of the INTA, so we are not proposing IPC to listen to South American liberal rads, but colleges from their own feud. On the other hand, the course is qualified for ?Certified Information Privacy Professional /Europe?, which gives both legitimacy and some sort of credit afterwards. >> The course is not cheap, at least not for ICANN community members, so I think it would be ideal if ICANN strikes some sort of deal to have this course open, not in ICANN times, but in EPDP times!!! I know Sam Pfeifle, IAPP Content Director, is the person who did the presentation of this matter at INTA 2018, and I heard good thing about it. If INTA could strike a deal, ICANN should too. I think this is the right track to bring a game changer element to the EPDP debate, a fast track training by trusted party already set-up to implement tomorrow. >> Disclosure, I have attended as guest some IAPP events at Argentina, usually at some big trademark law firm, but I have no direct nor indirect relationship, nor-whatsoever, with them. >> >> Cheers, >> Mart?n > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 10:26:55 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:26:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process In-Reply-To: References: <5EC56FB2-AFB2-435F-88EA-E8478B1DDC28@davecake.net> Message-ID: Hi , Thanks Farzaneh, I concurr with your explanations and rationale. @Ayden with regard to statement of Interest, I am thinking if we can put that as annex and maybe develop more like some set questions and so on. just to not emphasize one information compared to others. Best, Rafik Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 01:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks very much for sharing this, Farzaneh. Please find attached some > suggested edits. In particular, I would like to broadly define what > information should be contained within the Statement of Interest sought > from each candidate. There is no implied criticism here (to be clear, I am > not suggesting that past statements were inadequate) - just wanting to make > sure we capture certain information in the future in the interest of > transparency. I have also re-worded one sentence to do with the NCSG > consulting with members - all the CSG needs to know is we come to a > consensus as a stakeholder group, how is up to us... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 June 2018 5:59 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Thanks David. > > CSG got back to us and they are happy with the procedure as is with a > minor change in the document I have attached. > > We need to discuss this in more detail. On the one hand, we cannot change > CSG internal procedure. How would we feel if they wanted to change our > internal procedure? On the other hand what you are raising has been an > issue within the community. > > As to NCA, NCA has an advisory role anyhow in the council as well.If it > doesn't provide an advantage (and let's face it, sometimes NCAs would work > against us or would work against both NCSG and CSG) then why not keep the > role advisory? > > I am not disagreeing. I am just putting these questions out there for the > veterans to tell us why we should not accept the procedure as is. > > When I was at the WT on GNSO bylaws changes, we insisted on giving NCA a > role in the empowered community when it came to appointments. This was > because as we argued, NCA could take you out of a deadlock. We argued the > same here, but CSG did not accept the argument. Considering that NomCom > appointments recently to the GNSO have been almost disasterous (for example > they appointed a government person to GNSO!!) I wonder if we want them > fully involved with the process. > > We might continue this discussion with CSG depending on the feedback I > receive here, so please keep the feedback coming, but please also provide > solutions that can be a middle way of what they want and what we want. > > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:30 PM, David Cake wrote: > >> My apologies for taking a while to comment on this. >> >> I admit to disliking this draft, it has significantly changed from the >> old procedure and none of the changes seem positive to me. >> >> The NCA is effectively rendered irrelevant. Included as an adviser is >> meaningless, as far as I can tell. While the NCA offers no particular >> advantage to NCSG, I think it is a definite step back in terms of creating >> an open procedure. . >> >> And it effectively removes the vote of individual councillors entirely. >> NCSG only reluctantly adopted binding councillors individual votes as a >> counter tactic to the CSG, and this procedure enshrines that permanently, >> effectively saying there is no hope that the CSG will have any internal >> democracy, so we shouldn?t bother with the potential for it. And it >> entirely lacks any procedure for coming to an outcome if full consensus >> can?t be found, other than rinse and repeat. >> >> If it was to be adopted, we would at least need a new procedure to >> determine how leadership consensus will be determined, if there is a >> minority opinion. >> >> David >> >> >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:31 am, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> all >> >> here is the second draft of board appointment procedure. CSG accepted NCA >> to be involved with the process but have an advisory role. It also accepted >> to have elections but vote as a block (NCSG and CSG) >> >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Tue Jun 12 14:29:50 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:29:50 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process In-Reply-To: References: <5EC56FB2-AFB2-435F-88EA-E8478B1DDC28@davecake.net> Message-ID: Dear Rafik, I totally concur based on the rationale given. Kind Regards Poncelet On 12 June 2018 at 07:26, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi , > > Thanks Farzaneh, I concurr with your explanations and rationale. > @Ayden with regard to statement of Interest, I am thinking if we can put > that as annex and maybe develop more like some set questions and so on. > just to not emphasize one information compared to others. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 01:14, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks very much for sharing this, Farzaneh. Please find attached some >> suggested edits. In particular, I would like to broadly define what >> information should be contained within the Statement of Interest sought >> from each candidate. There is no implied criticism here (to be clear, I am >> not suggesting that past statements were inadequate) - just wanting to make >> sure we capture certain information in the future in the interest of >> transparency. I have also re-worded one sentence to do with the NCSG >> consulting with members - all the CSG needs to know is we come to a >> consensus as a stakeholder group, how is up to us... >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 June 2018 5:59 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Thanks David. >> >> CSG got back to us and they are happy with the procedure as is with a >> minor change in the document I have attached. >> >> We need to discuss this in more detail. On the one hand, we cannot change >> CSG internal procedure. How would we feel if they wanted to change our >> internal procedure? On the other hand what you are raising has been an >> issue within the community. >> >> As to NCA, NCA has an advisory role anyhow in the council as well.If it >> doesn't provide an advantage (and let's face it, sometimes NCAs would work >> against us or would work against both NCSG and CSG) then why not keep the >> role advisory? >> >> I am not disagreeing. I am just putting these questions out there for the >> veterans to tell us why we should not accept the procedure as is. >> >> When I was at the WT on GNSO bylaws changes, we insisted on giving NCA a >> role in the empowered community when it came to appointments. This was >> because as we argued, NCA could take you out of a deadlock. We argued the >> same here, but CSG did not accept the argument. Considering that NomCom >> appointments recently to the GNSO have been almost disasterous (for example >> they appointed a government person to GNSO!!) I wonder if we want them >> fully involved with the process. >> >> We might continue this discussion with CSG depending on the feedback I >> receive here, so please keep the feedback coming, but please also provide >> solutions that can be a middle way of what they want and what we want. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:30 PM, David Cake wrote: >> >>> My apologies for taking a while to comment on this. >>> >>> I admit to disliking this draft, it has significantly changed from the >>> old procedure and none of the changes seem positive to me. >>> >>> The NCA is effectively rendered irrelevant. Included as an adviser is >>> meaningless, as far as I can tell. While the NCA offers no particular >>> advantage to NCSG, I think it is a definite step back in terms of creating >>> an open procedure. . >>> >>> And it effectively removes the vote of individual councillors entirely. >>> NCSG only reluctantly adopted binding councillors individual votes as a >>> counter tactic to the CSG, and this procedure enshrines that permanently, >>> effectively saying there is no hope that the CSG will have any internal >>> democracy, so we shouldn?t bother with the potential for it. And it >>> entirely lacks any procedure for coming to an outcome if full consensus >>> can?t be found, other than rinse and repeat. >>> >>> If it was to be adopted, we would at least need a new procedure to >>> determine how leadership consensus will be determined, if there is a >>> minority opinion. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:31 am, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> all >>> >>> here is the second draft of board appointment procedure. CSG accepted >>> NCA to be involved with the process but have an advisory role. It also >>> accepted to have elections but vote as a block (NCSG and CSG) >>> >>> >>> Let me know what you think. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> ________________________ >>> _______________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 15:18:54 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 21:18:54 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Mapping the Temp Spec to Existing ICANN Agreements and Policies In-Reply-To: References: <39CCF1F9-6D82-474E-A90B-5675D6D72D57@icann.org> Message-ID: hi all, sharing here a document sent by the board as follow-up item from council-board last week, listing all agreements and policies impacted by the temporary specification that can be useful for us to do our own mapping and analysis to prepare for the coming EPDP. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- Dear Council colleagues, An immediate follow-up to my previous email - below and attached is the response outstanding to #9 (mapping across other ICANN policies), which I understand may require further refinements. Sincere thanks to Cherine, Chris, David and their colleagues for providing this information as quickly as possible. Best wishes, Heather ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Heather ; Attached is the document mapping the Temporary Specification to existing agreements and policies. I have marked this document as ?working draft? because we may need some refinements as we move forward. Best regards, David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TempSpecMapping_11 June 2018.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 130020 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 01:55:18 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:55:18 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Slides for Thursday Webinar Message-ID: Here are the slides I have drafted for Thursday. I know I have not included RPM... but the two most important thems to focus on this meeting is Georgraphic Names and GDPR. Please keep the feedback coming and let me know if you want to cover any of the slides at the webinar. I am ready to cover them all unless yo ustep in. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG-Webinar ed(1).pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 2399336 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jun 13 02:07:51 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 19:07:51 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> Message-ID: For further discussion... Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marika Konings > Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 > Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates > To: council at gnso.icann.org > Cc: > > Dear All, > > As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has gone ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well as the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication between the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest that you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once elements such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can then be lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note that staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based on existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to facilitate your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > Marika Konings > > Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: marika.konings at icann.org > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EPDP Initiation Request 12 June 2018.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18258 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EPDP Draft Charter - 12 June 2018.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 124267 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 03:21:07 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:21:07 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published In-Reply-To: References: <365ff94fe6e54018a434ffea0a5b70a5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <0d5f01d3fe12$b43e13f0$1cba3bd0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: Hi, Xavier confirmed that his team will verify for all submitted comments and ensure they are included. when confirmed, they will publish an amended report and inform about the comments that were omitted in the first report. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 7 juin 2018 ? 18:08, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi Ayden, > > I will reach Xavier to raise that. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le jeu. 7 juin 2018 ? 18:06, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Hopefully this was just an oversight and not intentional. If not >> corrected, we might have to write another letter -- our comments are not >> being included in the staff reports of public comments if they cut against >> the grain, while those supporting the staff recommendations are in there... >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 7 June 2018 12:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Thanks for sharing this, Berry. >> >> I have now reviewed the report of public comments and it seems to have >> thoroughly captured the comments of the GNSO Council. >> >> Unfortunately, it did not capture the comments of the NCSG in a >> comprehensive manner, ignoring the NCSG's comment altogether that we oppose >> the use of auction proceeds to replenish the reserve fund, while including >> comments from the ccNSO that were favourable towards the use of this >> resource. The NCSG's request that moving forward a quarterly update be >> provided so that the community can see how decisions made in relation to >> the Reserve Fund are being delivered was also not included. >> >> I am not sure how this report is compiled, or how staff determine what >> comments to include or not, but a complete report, in my opinion, is one >> which includes all comments submitted in good faith. I would encourage >> others to review this report of public comments and to take inventory of >> what comments from your constituency/stakeholder group have been included >> (or not included). I do hope the omission of some comments was just an >> oversight. >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 7 June 2018 6:50 AM, wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> FYI, the Report of Public comments for the Reserve Fund Replenishment is >> now available for review. >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> B >> >> >> >> Berry A. Cobb >> >> 720.839.5735 >> >> mail at berrycobb.com >> >> @berrycobb >> >> >> >> *From:* community-finance [mailto:community-finance-bounces at icann.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Planning >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 6, 2018 19:54 >> *To:* community-finance at icann.org >> *Subject:* [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed >> Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published >> >> >> >> We wanted to inform you that the ICANN organization?s Report of Public >> Comments on the Reserve Fund Proposed Replenishment Strategy has been >> published. Included in the publication is a summary of the replenishment >> strategy responses from each commenter (section IV additional information). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en >> >> >> >> >> >> The ICANN org has received valuable and substantive comments from the >> public comment proceeding and wishes to thank everyone for your >> contributions in this important planning process. >> >> >> >> >> >> *Shani Quidwai* >> >> ICANN- Director, Financial Planning and Analysis >> >> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >> >> Los Angeles, CA 90064 >> >> Mobile: (310) 804-7684 >> >> Office: (310) 578-8664 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 03:35:58 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:35:58 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Slides for Thursday Webinar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, there is a small error about number of councillors in slide #7. I will be happy to talk about PC plans and give updates about council in Panama including discussion on EPDP and so on (I understand we have to keep things simple) regarding cc session, there is another one about next steps for temp spec with update from GNSO council lederhsip in last day of the meeting. we can also add a note about the GNSO Policy webinar scheduled next Monday and encourage participation. Best, Rafik Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 07:56, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Here are the slides I have drafted for Thursday. > > I know I have not included RPM... but the two most important thems to > focus on this meeting is Georgraphic Names and GDPR. > > Please keep the feedback coming and let me know if you want to cover any > of the slides at the webinar. I am ready to cover them all unless yo > ustep in. > > > > > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 03:39:25 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:39:25 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Slides for Thursday Webinar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the feedback. Did I delete the last slide, I had it about the webinar ... must have Yes I fixed the number of councilors ... sorry I will put the cc session as well. Perhaps it makes sense to re-organize based on topic. I will take a look again Farzaneh On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > there is a small error about number of councillors in slide #7. > I will be happy to talk about PC plans and give updates about council in > Panama including discussion on EPDP and so on (I understand we have to keep > things simple) > > regarding cc session, there is another one about next steps for temp spec > with update from GNSO council lederhsip in last day of the meeting. > we can also add a note about the GNSO Policy webinar scheduled next Monday > and encourage participation. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 07:56, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> Here are the slides I have drafted for Thursday. >> >> I know I have not included RPM... but the two most important thems to >> focus on this meeting is Georgraphic Names and GDPR. >> >> Please keep the feedback coming and let me know if you want to cover any >> of the slides at the webinar. I am ready to cover them all unless yo >> ustep in. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Wed Jun 13 09:47:19 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:47:19 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Slides for Thursday Webinar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13142A31-EB3D-4087-82B6-45A352EB199D@benin2point0.org> Dear Farzaneh, Thanks for drafting this. I have no comment except on slide 9 where the ?E" of EPDP rather stands for Expedited (according to ICANN documents) instead of Emergency (it is the the same idea however). Well done! @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 13 Jun 2018, at 00:55, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Here are the slides I have drafted for Thursday. > > I know I have not included RPM... but the two most important thems to focus on this meeting is Georgraphic Names and GDPR. > > Please keep the feedback coming and let me know if you want to cover any of the slides at the webinar. I am ready to cover them all unless yo ustep in. > > > > > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 14:17:57 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:17:57 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Slides for Thursday Webinar In-Reply-To: <13142A31-EB3D-4087-82B6-45A352EB199D@benin2point0.org> References: <13142A31-EB3D-4087-82B6-45A352EB199D@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: I have corrected that. Thanks On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:47 AM Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear Farzaneh, > > Thanks for drafting this. I have no comment except on slide 9 where the > ?E" of EPDP rather stands for *Expedited* (according to ICANN documents) > instead of Emergency (it is the the same idea however). > > Well done! > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > On 13 Jun 2018, at 00:55, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Here are the slides I have drafted for Thursday. > > I know I have not included RPM... but the two most important thems to > focus on this meeting is Georgraphic Names and GDPR. > > Please keep the feedback coming and let me know if you want to cover any > of the slides at the webinar. I am ready to cover them all unless yo > ustep in. > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 15:31:58 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:31:58 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Slides for Thursday Webinar In-Reply-To: References: <13142A31-EB3D-4087-82B6-45A352EB199D@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Very good presentation, Farzi. I hope you take this as an initiative to do before every ICANN meeting. 2018-06-13 13:17 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii : > I have corrected that. Thanks > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:47 AM Farell FOLLY > wrote: > >> Dear Farzaneh, >> >> Thanks for drafting this. I have no comment except on slide 9 where the >> ?E" of EPDP rather stands for *Expedited* (according to ICANN documents) >> instead of Emergency (it is the the same idea however). >> >> Well done! >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13 Jun 2018, at 00:55, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> Here are the slides I have drafted for Thursday. >> >> I know I have not included RPM... but the two most important thems to >> focus on this meeting is Georgraphic Names and GDPR. >> >> Please keep the feedback coming and let me know if you want to cover any >> of the slides at the webinar. I am ready to cover them all unless yo >> ustep in. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- > Farzaneh > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 15:41:53 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:41:53 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published In-Reply-To: References: <365ff94fe6e54018a434ffea0a5b70a5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <0d5f01d3fe12$b43e13f0$1cba3bd0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: Thanks for tracking this, Ayden and thanks Rafik for following up on it with Xavier. Some important things can simply be omitted and disappear until someone spots them and brings them up. 2018-06-13 2:21 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak : > Hi, > > Xavier confirmed that his team will verify for all submitted comments and > ensure they are included. when confirmed, they will publish an amended > report and inform about the comments that were omitted in the first report. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le jeu. 7 juin 2018 ? 18:08, Rafik Dammak a ?crit > : > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> I will reach Xavier to raise that. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le jeu. 7 juin 2018 ? 18:06, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hopefully this was just an oversight and not intentional. If not >>> corrected, we might have to write another letter -- our comments are not >>> being included in the staff reports of public comments if they cut >>> against >>> the grain, while those supporting the staff recommendations are in >>> there... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 7 June 2018 12:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for sharing this, Berry. >>> >>> I have now reviewed the report of public comments and it seems to have >>> thoroughly captured the comments of the GNSO Council. >>> >>> Unfortunately, it did not capture the comments of the NCSG in a >>> comprehensive manner, ignoring the NCSG's comment altogether that we >>> oppose >>> the use of auction proceeds to replenish the reserve fund, while >>> including >>> comments from the ccNSO that were favourable towards the use of this >>> resource. The NCSG's request that moving forward a quarterly update be >>> provided so that the community can see how decisions made in relation to >>> the Reserve Fund are being delivered was also not included. >>> >>> I am not sure how this report is compiled, or how staff determine what >>> comments to include or not, but a complete report, in my opinion, is one >>> which includes all comments submitted in good faith. I would encourage >>> others to review this report of public comments and to take inventory of >>> what comments from your constituency/stakeholder group have been >>> included >>> (or not included). I do hope the omission of some comments was just an >>> oversight. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 7 June 2018 6:50 AM, wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> >>> >>> FYI, the Report of Public comments for the Reserve Fund Replenishment is >>> now available for review. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> B >>> >>> >>> >>> Berry A. Cobb >>> >>> 720.839.5735 >>> >>> mail at berrycobb.com >>> >>> @berrycobb >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* community-finance [mailto:community-finance-bounces at icann.org] >>> *On >>> Behalf Of *Planning >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 6, 2018 19:54 >>> *To:* community-finance at icann.org >>> *Subject:* [community-finance] ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed >>> Replenishment Strategy Public Comment Report Published >>> >>> >>> >>> We wanted to inform you that the ICANN organization?s Report of Public >>> Comments on the Reserve Fund Proposed Replenishment Strategy has been >>> published. Included in the publication is a summary of the >>> replenishment >>> strategy responses from each commenter (section IV additional >>> information). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The ICANN org has received valuable and substantive comments from the >>> public comment proceeding and wishes to thank everyone for your >>> contributions in this important planning process. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Shani Quidwai* >>> >>> ICANN- Director, Financial Planning and Analysis >>> >>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >>> >>> Los Angeles, CA 90064 >>> >>> Mobile: (310) 804-7684 >>> >>> Office: (310) 578-8664 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Jun 13 23:21:36 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:21:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document attached In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19336216-1b47-1ada-d902-a51e5feed40b@mail.utoronto.ca> as this working group has been chugging along for the past two years with scant input from ourselves (basically, we are in my view sufficiently aligned with the registrars who want to maintain this service at a reasonable cost) I have not updated regularly.? However, I think we should raise alarm bells here.....looks like they may be trying to price this service out of existence.? For reference, check out the last couple of months emails, including a knock down drag out fight to get Finance to produce their costing rationale. Just being a bit perrinoid.... Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document attached Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:22:29 +0200 From: theo geurts Reply-To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org To: Amy Bivins , gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org Hi Amy, If there is no counter argument why do we provide feedback in the first place? Were the arguments not valid, not good enough? I still see a program startup, that will cost over a million, and that does not make sense to me post GDPR with a redacted WHOIS for 23+ days. Thanks, Theo On 13-6-2018 19:11, Amy Bivins wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback on the > privacy and proxy service provider accreditation fees-related > documentation, both on the list and during the meetings we have > recently had on this topic. > > ICANN org has carefully considered the feedback of all IRT members in > developing the proposed fee structure. Despite recommendations from > some IRT members to reduce the proposed fees, ICANN org continues to > believe that the fees proposed are reasonable and appropriate, for the > reasons identified in the fees proposal documentation (attached). > > As noted in the fees proposal, ICANN org analyzed three relevant > factors in reaching the fee structure that was proposed: relevant > benchmarks; fees transparency, simplicity, stability and > predictability; and anticipated program management costs. ICANN org > understands that some IRT members disagree with this assessment, but > did not find any of the arguments or suggestions raised by IRT members > persuasive. > If persuasive reasons are raised for revisiting the proposed fee > structure during the public comment period, ICANN org commits to > revisit the proposed fees. Please know that ICANN org sincerely > appreciates the time and effort you committed to this exercise and the > broader work of the IRT. > > Best, > > Amy > > -----Original Message----- > From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:04 AM > To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org > Cc: Amy Bivins > Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP fees proposal document > attached > > Thanks Amy, > > Am I reading this correctly? The program startup and application > processing is going to cost; 1,117,390??? > That is a huge amount of money for a program startup if only a few > providers signup for this and the majority decides that the temporary > spec or it's successor is enough privacy for registrants. But maybe I > am reading it incorrectly. > > When I look at the Activity Relevant Department(s) Accredited Provider > Account Management Services, it seems many of these activities already > exist for Registrars. Can those activities not be handled by the same > folks? > I mean does it matter if a Registrar changes its name or a Privacy > Provider? It's the same type of processing is it not? > > Also, a question about the PP Data Retention Waiver activity. What is > this activity? > > Thanks, > > Theo > > > Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-05-22 10:20 PM: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Attached, you will find additional information related to the proposed >> fees for the privacy and proxy service provider accreditation program. >> Please review and send any comments/questions to the list. >> >> Thank you for your patience. >> >> Best, >> >> Amy >> >> AMY E. BIVINS >> >> Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager >> >> Registrar Services and Industry Relations >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 >> >> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 >> >> Email: amy.bivins at icann.org >> >> www.icann.org [1] >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=Dw >> ICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-T >> plkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=BJtpG8Olp_3NAmSVAsUTW_HmMsKblc3_3k59uUScn >> vs&s=YBcBo-2U5vstASdpDcav-4W8w712XbFjerD180TrPRo&e= >> _______________________________________________ >> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list >> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl _______________________________________________ Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 14 01:25:32 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:25:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: Sorry but I think we need to regroup. I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. I?m not comfortable with this. Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. -Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ars?ne Tungali > Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process > To: Austin, Donna > Cc: GNSO Council List > This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council @gnso.icann.org> @gnso.icann.org> @gnso.icann.org at gnso.icann.org> @winston.com> @winston.com at gnso.icann.org@ferdeline.com at winston.com@winston.com at gnso.icann.org@nic.br at gnso.icann.org@gnso.icann.org at nic.br@gnso.icann.org at gnso.icann.org> @nic.br> @blacknight.com> @gnso.icann.org> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 05:39:20 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:39:20 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi, other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained and the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in our calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification including the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from implementation, and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our standpoint. We will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. We can create a working document we can populate and do that in collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify the issues . Best, Rafik Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > For further discussion... > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marika Konings > Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 > Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP > Team Charter Templates > To: council at gnso.icann.org > Cc: > > Dear All, > > > > As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has gone > ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well as > the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication between > the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest that > you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once elements > such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can then be > lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note that > staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the > charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based on > existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have > come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 > conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in > yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be > added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem > appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to facilitate > your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . * > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 08:26:25 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:26:25 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document attached In-Reply-To: <19336216-1b47-1ada-d902-a51e5feed40b@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <19336216-1b47-1ada-d902-a51e5feed40b@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the updates, did you express your concerns or support registrars representatives there? Best, Rafik Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 05:21, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > as this working group has been chugging along for the past two years with > scant input from ourselves (basically, we are in my view sufficiently > aligned with the registrars who want to maintain this service at a > reasonable cost) I have not updated regularly. However, I think we should > raise alarm bells here.....looks like they may be trying to price this > service out of existence. For reference, check out the last couple of > months emails, including a knock down drag out fight to get Finance to > produce their costing rationale. > > Just being a bit perrinoid.... > > Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document > attached > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:22:29 +0200 > From: theo geurts > Reply-To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org > To: Amy Bivins , > gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org > > > Hi Amy, > > If there is no counter argument why do we provide feedback in the first > place? > Were the arguments not valid, not good enough? > > I still see a program startup, that will cost over a million, and that > does not make sense to me post GDPR with a redacted WHOIS for 23+ days. > > Thanks, > > Theo > > > > > On 13-6-2018 19:11, Amy Bivins wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback on the > privacy and proxy service provider accreditation fees-related > documentation, both on the list and during the meetings we have recently > had on this topic. > > ICANN org has carefully considered the feedback of all IRT members in > developing the proposed fee structure. Despite recommendations from some > IRT members to reduce the proposed fees, ICANN org continues to believe > that the fees proposed are reasonable and appropriate, for the reasons > identified in the fees proposal documentation (attached). > > As noted in the fees proposal, ICANN org analyzed three relevant factors > in reaching the fee structure that was proposed: relevant benchmarks; fees > transparency, simplicity, stability and predictability; and anticipated > program management costs. ICANN org understands that some IRT members > disagree with this assessment, but did not find any of the arguments or > suggestions raised by IRT members persuasive. > If persuasive reasons are raised for revisiting the proposed fee structure > during the public comment period, ICANN org commits to revisit the proposed > fees. Please know that ICANN org sincerely appreciates the time and effort > you committed to this exercise and the broader work of the IRT. > > Best, > > Amy > > -----Original Message----- > From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl ] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:04 AM > To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org > Cc: Amy Bivins > Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP fees proposal document attached > > Thanks Amy, > > Am I reading this correctly? The program startup and application > processing is going to cost; 1,117,390??? > That is a huge amount of money for a program startup if only a few > providers signup for this and the majority decides that the temporary spec > or it's successor is enough privacy for registrants. But maybe I am reading > it incorrectly. > > When I look at the Activity Relevant Department(s) Accredited Provider > Account Management Services, it seems many of these activities already > exist for Registrars. Can those activities not be handled by the same folks? > I mean does it matter if a Registrar changes its name or a Privacy > Provider? It's the same type of processing is it not? > > Also, a question about the PP Data Retention Waiver activity. What is this > activity? > > Thanks, > > Theo > > > Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-05-22 10:20 PM: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Attached, you will find additional information related to the proposed > fees for the privacy and proxy service provider accreditation program. > Please review and send any comments/questions to the list. > > Thank you for your patience. > > Best, > > Amy > > AMY E. BIVINS > > Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager > > Registrar Services and Industry Relations > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 > > Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 > > Email: amy.bivins at icann.org > > www.icann.org [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=Dw > ICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-T > plkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=BJtpG8Olp_3NAmSVAsUTW_HmMsKblc3_3k59uUScn > vs&s=YBcBo-2U5vstASdpDcav-4W8w712XbFjerD180TrPRo&e= > _______________________________________________ > Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list > Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl > > > _______________________________________________ > Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list > Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 14 10:47:39 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 03:47:39 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> Message-ID: <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> Initial thoughts on EPDP leadership: 1 chair (from community) 1 vice chair (external facilitator / mediator) no more than that leadership not counted as part of the stakeholder group appointees (3/SG) but I can be persuaded otherwise... happy to hear other options. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 14 June 2018 4:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained and the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. > So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in our calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. > for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification including the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from implementation, and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our standpoint. We will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. > We can create a working document we can populate and do that in collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify the issues . > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> For further discussion... >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Marika Konings >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 >>> Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates >>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>> Cc: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has gone ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well as the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication between the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest that you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once elements such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can then be lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note that staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based on existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to facilitate your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> Marika Konings >>> >>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>> >>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 11:07:00 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 17:07:00 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: Hi, we should discuss the NCSG positions on different issues and not just on this matter. tbh I was not sure if the proposal was needed in first place but we passed that now. to be pratical and move one, we can agree about having a common baseline at least with regard to GDPR. Some questions are raised on how to implement this effectively without hindering EPDP team kick-off e.g. a short trainining (in-house or from 3rd party for what we saw already opposition from contracted party), just primers and material to be read by participants. at the end, it is not the most urgent issue but we can resolve this quickly. I have no preference but will support a proposal that doesn't divert us from the bulk of the work. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 07:25, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Sorry but I think we need to regroup. > > I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. > > I?m not comfortable with this. > > Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or > stakeholder group. > > Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is > not their area of expertise. > > -Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ars?ne Tungali > Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > To: Austin, Donna > Cc: GNSO Council List > This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with > you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups > (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a > course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design > (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have > the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this > discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 > UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an > important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and > appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I > don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. > The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I > don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from > the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not > undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that > there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about > GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a > pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training > course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary > specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be > compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the > integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika > noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some > elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some > elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more > sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we > expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we > don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but > we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the > ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a > lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties > than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but > because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use > Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a > lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, > perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets > that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide > this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele > Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: > [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy > Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance > that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the > SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are > counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? > practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 > 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: > [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy > Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think > many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, > is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly > in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject > matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had > little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy > development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that > is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key > areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I > also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues > with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. > If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m > sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked > neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for > people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I > can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele > Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 > 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit > 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 > X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of > Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council > List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of > proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I > made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, > but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the > training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, > which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find > reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every > certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, > not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral > tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look > at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could > come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, > trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me > throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how > we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a > "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather > Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - > Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun > 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which > will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from > Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto: > crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, > Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: > [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy > Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of > which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went > back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement > with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to > become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my > needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only > to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have > a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, > we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my > understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, > creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some > cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner > Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So > from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge > on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best > expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to > be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander > with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa > Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado > 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us > representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws > from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in > WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. > Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the > basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful > skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the > first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some > basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort > from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff > in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. > McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished > reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the > mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for > doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the > Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the > scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the > call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance > with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* > members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of > the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to > request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff > member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at > least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a > huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a > common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data > Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral > International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only > use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request > that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and > reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts > here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be > given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be > privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, > please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not > intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate > this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice > contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, > by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax > laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive > Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of > Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF > Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. > AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report > (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ > council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 11:17:56 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 17:17:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi , indeed we should flesh out positions here before sharing in council list and coordinate our responses. I hope we can do tha bettert from now on. I dont think vice-chair can be a role for external facilitator or mediator as chairing involve admin work (scheduling calls, review notes etc), project management tasks, reporting to council and community and so on. a facilitator and/or meditaor can be there as support for leadership team or chair and intervene for some cases like faciliating discussion or resolve conflict. they can be seens as resources. There is also the idea of legal counsel we should introduce more in the discussion. that is important to be agreed in term of resourcing. I understand that staff would like to have the minimal number in leadership time to ensure quick responses when they ask them , however there is always need to have vice-chair or co-chair to replace chair if needed or be a backup. we can argue that EPDP team is not a long time commitment, in such case we will need some mechanisms to ensure backup and handle chair absence. for board, 1 liaison will be enough as board wll organize its work via a board caucus and monitor the discussion. we need to be careful about the number as we also want to keep representation from SO/AC to 1 and so keeping the overall EPDP team size small. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 16:47, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Initial thoughts on EPDP leadership: > > 1 chair (from community) > 1 vice chair (external facilitator / mediator) > no more than that > leadership not counted as part of the stakeholder group appointees (3/SG) > > but I can be persuaded otherwise... happy to hear other options. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 14 June 2018 4:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is > found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained and > the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. > So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the > composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in our > calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. > for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification including > the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from implementation, > and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our standpoint. We > will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. > We can create a working document we can populate and do that in > collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points > about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify the > issues . > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> For further discussion... >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Marika Konings >> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 >> Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and >> EPDP Team Charter Templates >> To: council at gnso.icann.org >> Cc: >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has gone >> ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well as >> the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication between >> the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest that >> you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once elements >> such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can then be >> lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note that >> staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the >> charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based on >> existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have >> come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 >> conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in >> yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be >> added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem >> appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to facilitate >> your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Marika >> >> >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >> >> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >> >> >> >> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >> >> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> . * >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 11:19:48 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:19:48 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: I also think we should start a conversation about selection criteria for our own reps to that WG. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 14, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > we should discuss the NCSG positions on different issues and not just on this matter. > tbh I was not sure if the proposal was needed in first place but we passed that now. to be pratical and move one, we can agree about having a common baseline at least with regard to GDPR. Some questions are raised on how to implement this effectively without hindering EPDP team kick-off e.g. a short trainining (in-house or from 3rd party for what we saw already opposition from contracted party), just primers and material to be read by participants. at the end, it is not the most urgent issue but we can resolve this quickly. I have no preference but will support a proposal that doesn't divert us from the bulk of the work. > > Best, > > Rafik > >> Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 07:25, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> Sorry but I think we need to regroup. >> >> I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. >> >> I?m not comfortable with this. >> >> Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. >> >> Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. >> >> -Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Ars?ne Tungali >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >>> To: Austin, Donna >>> Cc: GNSO Council List >>> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 11:30:21 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 17:30:21 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: Hi, I think that will be next step just after or when we are finalizing the work the work on charter and particular the scope, so likely during Panama meeting. From that we can have a better idea what is expetced in term of expertise and experience. the selection process can be tweaked fromn previous experience and criteira based on our expectations and what EPDP may list . it will be a quick process. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 17:20, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > I also think we should start a conversation about selection criteria for > our own reps to that WG. > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 14, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > we should discuss the NCSG positions on different issues and not just on > this matter. > tbh I was not sure if the proposal was needed in first place but we passed > that now. to be pratical and move one, we can agree about having a common > baseline at least with regard to GDPR. Some questions are raised on how to > implement this effectively without hindering EPDP team kick-off e.g. a > short trainining (in-house or from 3rd party for what we saw already > opposition from contracted party), just primers and material to be read by > participants. at the end, it is not the most urgent issue but we can > resolve this quickly. I have no preference but will support a proposal that > doesn't divert us from the bulk of the work. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 07:25, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Sorry but I think we need to regroup. >> >> I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. >> >> I?m not comfortable with this. >> >> Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or >> stakeholder group. >> >> Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is >> not their area of expertise. >> >> -Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Ars?ne Tungali >> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of >> proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >> To: Austin, Donna >> Cc: GNSO Council List >> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree >> with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their >> respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected >> members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have >> volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by >> Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. >> That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, >> Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think >> Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own >> process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the >> WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > >> any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > >> Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to >> > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, >> because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being >> the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that >> training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than >> having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required >> to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given >> the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > >> parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains >> > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make >> > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika >> noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some >> elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some >> elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more >> sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we >> expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we >> don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but >> we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the >> ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a >> lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties >> than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but >> because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use >> Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a >> lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, >> perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets >> that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide >> this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > >> Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf >> Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele >> Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: >> [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy >> Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance >> that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the >> SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are >> counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? >> practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > >> Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 >> 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: >> [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy >> Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think >> many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, >> is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly >> in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject >> matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had >> little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy >> development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that >> is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key >> areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I >> also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues >> with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. >> If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m >> sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked >> neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for >> people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I >> can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele >> Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > >> https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) >> 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > >> https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > >> ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit >> 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 >> X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of >> Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council >> List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of >> proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I >> made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, >> but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the >> training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, >> which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find >> reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > >> himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > >> certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every >> certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, >> not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral >> tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look >> at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could >> come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, >> trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me >> throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how >> we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a >> "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather >> Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - >> Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun >> 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > >> Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > >> barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if >> > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > >> shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > >> unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > >> than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. >> > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > >> steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which >> will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from >> Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto: >> crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, >> Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: >> [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy >> Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of >> which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went >> back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement >> with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to >> become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my >> needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only >> to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have >> a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, >> we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my >> understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, >> creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some >> cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner >> Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > >> Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So >> from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > >> qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would >> > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that >> > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial >> > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge >> on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best >> expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to >> be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander >> with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa >> Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado >> 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. >> > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us >> representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws >> from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in >> WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. >> Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the >> basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful >> skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the >> first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some >> basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort >> from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff >> in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. >> McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > >> Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > >> Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > >> [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline >> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > >> Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited >> > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished >> reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the >> mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for >> doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the >> Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the >> scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the >> call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance >> with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* >> members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of >> the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to >> request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff >> member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at >> least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a >> huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a >> common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data >> Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral >> International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only >> use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. >> > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request >> that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and >> reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts >> here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be >> given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline >> > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be >> privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, >> please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not >> intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate >> this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice >> contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, >> by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax >> laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > >> council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > >> _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > >> council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > >> > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive >> Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >> Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of >> Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF >> Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. >> AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - >> Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report >> (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 11:31:56 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:31:56 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: <6B2B7F0C-7274-4985-86DE-C47FFB352CCC@gmail.com> That looks fair ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 14, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > I think that will be next step just after or when we are finalizing the work the work on charter and particular the scope, so likely during Panama meeting. From that we can have a better idea what is expetced in term of expertise and experience. > the selection process can be tweaked fromn previous experience and criteira based on our expectations and what EPDP may list . it will be a quick process. > > Best, > > Rafik > >> Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 17:20, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : >> I also think we should start a conversation about selection criteria for our own reps to that WG. >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >>> On Jun 14, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> we should discuss the NCSG positions on different issues and not just on this matter. >>> tbh I was not sure if the proposal was needed in first place but we passed that now. to be pratical and move one, we can agree about having a common baseline at least with regard to GDPR. Some questions are raised on how to implement this effectively without hindering EPDP team kick-off e.g. a short trainining (in-house or from 3rd party for what we saw already opposition from contracted party), just primers and material to be read by participants. at the end, it is not the most urgent issue but we can resolve this quickly. I have no preference but will support a proposal that doesn't divert us from the bulk of the work. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>>> Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 07:25, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>> Sorry but I think we need to regroup. >>>> >>>> I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. >>>> >>>> I?m not comfortable with this. >>>> >>>> Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. >>>> >>>> Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. >>>> >>>> -Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Ars?ne Tungali >>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >>>>> To: Austin, Donna >>>>> Cc: GNSO Council List >>>>> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Thu Jun 14 11:35:45 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:35:45 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: <8E89F242-87A2-4180-8DE1-752885A6F4C3@davecake.net> The idea of the IPC designing a data protection course seems crazy. The IPC have already, multiple times, indicated loudly that they disagree with the leading legal experts in the field, such as the various legal advice obtained by ICANN, AND with the opinions of the DPAs. They?ve pretty much self identified as far outside the legal mainstream in the views they are promoting, and thus can?t be reasonably held as in any way suitable. I find the idea of course or briefing material that is produced by any one group inside ICANN to be a very bad one. David > On 14 Jun 2018, at 6:25 am, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Sorry but I think we need to regroup. > > I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. > > I?m not comfortable with this. > > Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. > > Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. > > -Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Ars?ne Tungali> >> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >> To: Austin, Donna > >> Cc: GNSO Council List > >> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 11:38:12 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:38:12 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: I don?t have any strong opinion (for now) about who designs the courses (outsiders or insiders) as long as the material will have to get approval from the Council before they can be implemented. If not the council, maybe WG members will have to agree on the content. And we will be represented there. That?s my opinion. Also, if you don?t want IPC folks to design a course on privacy, you can volunteer to do so and have them design anything trademark or so. I was simply building around what was offered as part of the discussion, which is still ongoing. I was not suggesting they do it. But yes, we can agree as a group and advance our opinion there on this particular matter. But as Rafik said, it is not yet the urgency. There are more urgent matters to work on such as charter etc. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 14, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Sorry but I think we need to regroup. > > I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. > > I?m not comfortable with this. > > Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. > > Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. > > -Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Ars?ne Tungali >> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >> To: Austin, Donna >> Cc: GNSO Council List >> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 14 11:52:47 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:52:47 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: I have been consistently arguing that we want the training developed by a neutral third party (ie IAPP), not anyone from in the community, as that will inevitably lend itself to allegations of bias. I am sure the IPC would not be comfortable with us developing a course on trademark law. Even though some of our members have that expertise. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:38, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > I don?t have any strong opinion (for now) about who designs the courses (outsiders or insiders) as long as the material will have to get approval from the Council before they can be implemented. If not the council, maybe WG members will have to agree on the content. And we will be represented there. That?s my opinion. > > Also, if you don?t want IPC folks to design a course on privacy, you can volunteer to do so and have them design anything trademark or so. I was simply building around what was offered as part of the discussion, which is still ongoing. I was not suggesting they do it. > > But yes, we can agree as a group and advance our opinion there on this particular matter. But as Rafik said, it is not yet the urgency. There are more urgent matters to work on such as charter etc. > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 14, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Sorry but I think we need to regroup. >> >> I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. >> >> I?m not comfortable with this. >> >> Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. >> >> Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. >> >> -Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Ars?ne Tungali >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >>> To: Austin, Donna >>> Cc: GNSO Council List >>> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council at gnso.icann.org> @gnso.icann.org> @gnso.icann.org at gnso.icann.org> @winston.com> @winston.com at gnso.icann.org@ferdeline.com at winston.com@winston.com at gnso.icann.org@nic.br at gnso.icann.org@gnso.icann.org at nic.br@gnso.icann.org at gnso.icann.org> @nic.br> @blacknight.com> @gnso.icann.org> > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 11:56:20 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:56:20 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: 2018-06-14 10:17 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak : > Hi , > > indeed we should flesh out positions here before sharing in council list > and coordinate our responses. I hope we can do tha bettert from now on. YES > I dont think vice-chair can be a role for external facilitator or mediator > as chairing involve admin work (scheduling calls, review notes etc), > project management tasks, reporting to council and community and so on. a > facilitator and/or meditaor can be there as support for leadership team or > chair and intervene for some cases like faciliating discussion or resolve > conflict. they can be seens as resources. I AGREE. Maybe have Chair and co-chair from the community and have the facilitator as the 3rd person in leadership (from outside). > There is also the idea of legal counsel we should introduce more in the > discussion. that is important to be agreed in term of resourcing. Is this position of legal councel be considered as part of the leadership and be permanent? Or just someone we can look up to when needed? > I understand that staff would like to have the minimal number in leadership > time to ensure quick responses when they ask them , however there is always > need to have vice-chair or co-chair to replace chair if needed or be a > backup. we can argue that EPDP team is not a long time commitment, in such > case we will need some mechanisms to ensure backup and handle chair > absence. Fair point. > for board, 1 liaison will be enough as board wll organize its work via a > board caucus and monitor the discussion. we need to be careful about the > number as we also want to keep representation from SO/AC to 1 and so > keeping the overall EPDP team size small. Have we ever agreed on the number of reps per SG here? I still think we need at least 2 members per SG. One of the reasons is a back up but also, two members can discuss a point of view and agree rather than having the point of view of one. That's my opinion. > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 16:47, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Initial thoughts on EPDP leadership: >> >> 1 chair (from community) >> 1 vice chair (external facilitator / mediator) >> no more than that >> leadership not counted as part of the stakeholder group appointees (3/SG) >> >> but I can be persuaded otherwise... happy to hear other options. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 14 June 2018 4:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is >> found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained >> and >> the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. >> So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the >> composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in our >> calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. >> for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification >> including >> the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from implementation, >> and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our standpoint. >> We >> will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. >> We can create a working document we can populate and do that in >> collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points >> about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify >> the >> issues . >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> For further discussion... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Marika Konings >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 >>> Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and >>> EPDP Team Charter Templates >>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>> Cc: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has >>> gone >>> ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well as >>> the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication >>> between >>> the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest that >>> you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once elements >>> such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can then >>> be >>> lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note that >>> staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the >>> charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based >>> on >>> existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that >>> have >>> come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 >>> conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in >>> yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be >>> added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem >>> appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to >>> facilitate >>> your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> >>> >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>> >>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>> >>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer >>> pages >>> . >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 12:00:19 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:00:19 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: What if ICANN doesn't want to pay the external service (designing the course and delivering it) and that we need volunteers to do so? Would you volunteer to design the data protection/privacy part of it? 2018-06-14 10:52 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > I have been consistently arguing that we want the training developed by a > neutral third party (ie IAPP), not anyone from in the community, as that > will inevitably lend itself to allegations of bias. I am sure the IPC would > not be comfortable with us developing a course on trademark law. Even though > some of our members have that expertise. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:38, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > >> I don?t have any strong opinion (for now) about who designs the courses >> (outsiders or insiders) as long as the material will have to get approval >> from the Council before they can be implemented. If not the council, maybe >> WG members will have to agree on the content. And we will be represented >> there. That?s my opinion. >> >> Also, if you don?t want IPC folks to design a course on privacy, you can >> volunteer to do so and have them design anything trademark or so. I was >> simply building around what was offered as part of the discussion, which >> is still ongoing. I was not suggesting they do it. >> >> But yes, we can agree as a group and advance our opinion there on this >> particular matter. But as Rafik said, it is not yet the urgency. There are >> more urgent matters to work on such as charter etc. >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Jun 14, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Sorry but I think we need to regroup. >>> >>> I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. >>> >>> I?m not comfortable with this. >>> >>> Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or >>> stakeholder group. >>> >>> Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is >>> not their area of expertise. >>> >>> -Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Ars?ne Tungali >>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of >>>> proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >>>> To: Austin, Donna >>>> Cc: GNSO Council List >>>> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree >>>> with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective >>>> groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will >>>> undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to >>>> design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help >>>> them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I >>>> got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene >>>> 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie >>>> has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own >>>> process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > >>>> the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should >>>> prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide >>>> guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will >>>> any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed >>>> by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. >>>> > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for >>>> the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. >>>> Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG >>>> members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group >>>> early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended >>>> to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR >>>> regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to >>>> the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training >>>> course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex >>>> law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more >>>> relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no >>>> relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > >>>> training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be >>>> > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need >>>> people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do >>>> need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN >>>> context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot >>>> more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties >>>> than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, >>>> but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" >>>> to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are >>>> spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > >>>> specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > >>>> knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP >>>> WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their >>>> respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council >>>> [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>> ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion >>>> for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development >>>> Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as >>>> we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs >>>> etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting >>>> on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, >>>> hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of >>>> Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > >>>> To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] >>>> Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy >>>> Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I >>>> think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what >>>> you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran >>>> into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar >>>> > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and >>>> / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in >>>> terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any >>>> member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a >>>> basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > >>>> While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > >>>> requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro >>>> to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get >>>> certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help >>>> them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a >>>> whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As >>>> for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d >>>> be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > >>>> Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > >>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) >>>> 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > >>>> https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > >>>> ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, >>>> Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 >>>> X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of >>>> Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council >>>> List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of >>>> proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point >>>> I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not >>>> excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying >>>> for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > >>>> certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I >>>> would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a >>>> certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see >>>> us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes >>>> the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on >>>> that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems >>>> to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, >>>> I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think >>>> that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development >>>> efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, >>>> registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus >>>> without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > >>>> sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - >>>> Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave >>>> Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott >>>> Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, >>>> Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I >>>> don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP >>>> certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go >>>> down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be >>>> for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. >>>> I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient >>>> to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m >>>> surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > >>>> steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which >>>> will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes >>>> from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>>> [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: >>>> McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > >>>> Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > >>>> Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting >>>> Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or >>>> so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I >>>> found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an >>>> economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either >>>> trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in >>>> case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > >>>> My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against >>>> both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all >>>> about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that >>>> any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great >>>> efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those >>>> efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put >>>> an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. >>>> (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal >>>> perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be >>>> a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we >>>> vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for >>>> collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden >>>> to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on >>>> either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best >>>> expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest >>>> to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified >>>> bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > >>>> ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ >>>> > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, >>>> McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since >>>> those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual >>>> property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those >>>> participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark >>>> laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people >>>> to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using >>>> these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > >>>> curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and >>>> setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with >>>> staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to >>>> participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > >>>> > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn >>>> LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 >>>> > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com >>>> > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On >>>> Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: >>>> GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership >>>> criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear >>>> all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our >>>> meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and >>>> staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put >>>> forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process >>>> (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at >>>> present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the >>>> Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > >>>> such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate >>>> that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms >>>> of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community >>>> member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the >>>> EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of >>>> data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, >>>> but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common >>>> understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data >>>> Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral >>>> International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only >>>> use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 >>>> years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to >>>> request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest >>>> and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your >>>> thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion >>>> please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > >>>> Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of >>>> this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has >>>> been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your >>>> receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > >>>> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission >>>> of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended >>>> to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to >>>> avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > >>>> council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing >>>> list > council at gnso.icann.org > >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- >>>> ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive >>>> Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >>>> Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of >>>> Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF >>>> Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council >>>> Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet >>>> Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom >>>> in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) >>>> _______________________________________________ council mailing list >>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council at gnso.icann.org> >>>> @gnso.icann.org> @gnso.icann.org at gnso.icann.org> @winston.com> >>>> @winston.com at gnso.icann.org@ferdeline.com at winston.com@winston.com at gnso.icann.org@nic.br at gnso.icann.org@gnso.icann.org at nic.br@gnso.icann.org at gnso.icann.org> >>>> @nic.br> @blacknight.com> @gnso.icann.org> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 12:01:27 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:01:27 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 17:56, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > 2018-06-14 10:17 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak : > > Hi , > > > > I AGREE. Maybe have Chair and co-chair from the community and have the > facilitator as the 3rd person in leadership (from outside). > my proposal was to have the facilitator and/or mediator as resource to be called when needed, they are not part of leadership > > > There is also the idea of legal counsel we should introduce more in the > > discussion. that is important to be agreed in term of resourcing. > > Is this position of legal councel be considered as part of the > leadership and be permanent? Or just someone we can look up to when > needed? > no legal counsel is a resource not a leaderhsip. based on CWG/CCWG experiences, they are only called when there is agreement on what to ask them for advices (for budgeting reasons) . > > > > for board, 1 liaison will be enough as board wll organize its work via a > > board caucus and monitor the discussion. we need to be careful about the > > number as we also want to keep representation from SO/AC to 1 and so > > keeping the overall EPDP team size small. > > Have we ever agreed on the number of reps per SG here? I still think > we need at least 2 members per SG. One of the reasons is a back up but > also, two members can discuss a point of view and agree rather than > having the point of view of one. That's my opinion. > we discussed that and I think we have agreement among us that 3 per SG is ok for us. Best, Rafik > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 16:47, Ayden F?rdeline a > > ?crit : > > > >> Initial thoughts on EPDP leadership: > >> > >> 1 chair (from community) > >> 1 vice chair (external facilitator / mediator) > >> no more than that > >> leadership not counted as part of the stakeholder group appointees > (3/SG) > >> > >> but I can be persuaded otherwise... happy to hear other options. > >> > >> Best wishes, Ayden > >> > >> > >> ??????? Original Message ??????? > >> On 14 June 2018 4:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is > >> found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained > >> and > >> the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. > >> So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the > >> composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in > our > >> calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. > >> for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification > >> including > >> the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from > implementation, > >> and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our standpoint. > >> We > >> will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. > >> We can create a working document we can populate and do that in > >> collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points > >> about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify > >> the > >> issues . > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline a > >> ?crit : > >> > >>> For further discussion... > >>> > >>> Ayden > >>> > >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: Marika Konings > >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 > >>> Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and > >>> EPDP Team Charter Templates > >>> To: council at gnso.icann.org > >>> Cc: > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has > >>> gone > >>> ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well > as > >>> the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication > >>> between > >>> the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest > that > >>> you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once > elements > >>> such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can then > >>> be > >>> lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note > that > >>> staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the > >>> charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either > based > >>> on > >>> existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that > >>> have > >>> come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP > 3.0 > >>> conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in > >>> yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be > >>> added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem > >>> appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to > >>> facilitate > >>> your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Marika > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Marika Konings* > >>> > >>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet > Corporation > >>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > >>> > >>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > >>> > >>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > >>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer > >>> pages > >>> < > http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers > >. > >>> * > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > < > 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 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > ( > Mauritius > >)* > - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Thu Jun 14 12:10:26 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Tropina, Tatiana) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:10:26 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> , Message-ID: Thanks Rafik. I support this, we need to work as a group on this and understand the common positions and make them clear. Working on the document (google doc?) would be probably the best solution. Would you create and "own" one as a PC Chair? Cheers, Tanya ________________________________ From: NCSG-PC [ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is] on behalf of Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: 14 June 2018 04:39 To: ncsg-pc Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates Hi, other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained and the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in our calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification including the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from implementation, and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our standpoint. We will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. We can create a working document we can populate and do that in collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify the issues . Best, Rafik Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : For further discussion... Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marika Konings> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates To: council at gnso.icann.org > Cc: Dear All, As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has gone ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well as the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication between the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest that you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once elements such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can then be lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note that staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based on existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to facilitate your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings at icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 12:12:01 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:12:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi all, to facilitate our discussion and working together on common positons, I uploaded the charter into google doc here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rIuqrSlKCDwyVj-UiMRExyjh-sGddZzb3ihX-gB8yrQ/edit the initiation will just get the language mostly from the charter. let's use the document. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 17:17, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi , > > indeed we should flesh out positions here before sharing in council list > and coordinate our responses. I hope we can do tha bettert from now on. > > I dont think vice-chair can be a role for external facilitator or mediator > as chairing involve admin work (scheduling calls, review notes etc), > project management tasks, reporting to council and community and so on. a > facilitator and/or meditaor can be there as support for leadership team or > chair and intervene for some cases like faciliating discussion or resolve > conflict. they can be seens as resources. > There is also the idea of legal counsel we should introduce more in the > discussion. that is important to be agreed in term of resourcing. > > I understand that staff would like to have the minimal number in > leadership time to ensure quick responses when they ask them , however > there is always need to have vice-chair or co-chair to replace chair if > needed or be a backup. we can argue that EPDP team is not a long time > commitment, in such case we will need some mechanisms to ensure backup and > handle chair absence. > > for board, 1 liaison will be enough as board wll organize its work via a > board caucus and monitor the discussion. we need to be careful about the > number as we also want to keep representation from SO/AC to 1 and so > keeping the overall EPDP team size small. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 16:47, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Initial thoughts on EPDP leadership: >> >> 1 chair (from community) >> 1 vice chair (external facilitator / mediator) >> no more than that >> leadership not counted as part of the stakeholder group appointees (3/SG) >> >> but I can be persuaded otherwise... happy to hear other options. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 14 June 2018 4:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is >> found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained and >> the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. >> So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the >> composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in our >> calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. >> for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification >> including the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from >> implementation, and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our >> standpoint. We will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. >> We can create a working document we can populate and do that in >> collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points >> about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify the >> issues . >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> For further discussion... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Marika Konings >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 >>> Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and >>> EPDP Team Charter Templates >>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>> Cc: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has >>> gone ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well >>> as the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication >>> between the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest >>> that you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once >>> elements such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can >>> then be lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note >>> that staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the >>> charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based on >>> existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have >>> come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 >>> conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in >>> yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be >>> added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem >>> appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to facilitate >>> your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> >>> >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>> >>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>> >>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> . * >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Jun 14 15:39:23 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:39:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <793aaa40-8fc1-86d8-84cd-d1172f1b873e@mail.utoronto.ca> I see the need for a conflict resolution specialist to be there as a resource for the community, not just the leadership team.? Therefore status would be similar to external legal counsel. cheers steph PS one Boardie is enough.? I vote for Becky. On 2018-06-14 04:17, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi , > > indeed we should flesh out positions here before sharing in council > list and coordinate our responses. I hope we can do tha bettert from > now on. > > I dont think vice-chair can be a role for external facilitator or > mediator as chairing involve admin work (scheduling calls, review > notes etc), project management tasks, reporting to council and > community and so on. a facilitator and/or meditaor can be there as > support for leadership team or chair and intervene for some cases like > faciliating discussion or resolve conflict. they can be seens as > resources. > There is also the idea of legal counsel we should introduce more in > the discussion. that is important to be agreed in term of resourcing. > I understand that staff would like to have the minimal number in > leadership time to ensure quick responses when they ask them , however > there is always need to have vice-chair or co-chair to replace chair > if needed or be a backup. we can argue that EPDP team is not a long > time commitment, in such case we will need some mechanisms to ensure > backup and handle chair absence. > > for board, 1 liaison will be enough as board wll organize its work via > a board caucus and monitor the discussion. we need to be careful about > the number as we also want to keep representation from SO/AC to 1 and > so keeping the overall EPDP team size small. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?jeu. 14 juin 2018 ??16:47, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit?: > > Initial thoughts on EPDP leadership: > > 1 chair (from community) > 1 vice chair (external facilitator / mediator) > no more than that > leadership not counted as part of the stakeholder group appointees > (3/SG) > > but I can be persuaded otherwise... happy to hear other options. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 14 June 2018 4:39 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> other than the standard language in template in certain sections >> that is found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to >> be constrained and the council as drafting team will have to >> discuss them. >> So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for >> the composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed >> that in our calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. >> for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification >> including the annex, identify areas related policy to separate >> from implementation, and do a triage of what is priorirty for >> this EPDP from our standpoint. We will see later if there are >> commonalities with other groups. >> We can create a working document we can populate and do that in >> collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some >> points about picket fence were made but we have to do our >> homework to identify the issues . >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le?mer. 13 juin 2018 ??08:08, Ayden F?rdeline >> > a ?crit?: >> >> For further discussion... >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Marika Konings>> > >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 >>> Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation >>> Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates >>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, >>> staff has gone ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP >>> Initiation Request as well as the EPDP Team Charter (see >>> attached). As there is some duplication between the >>> Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to >>> suggest that you focus your attention on the EPDP Team >>> charter for now. Once elements such as scope and team >>> composition have been agreed on, these can then be lifted >>> from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note >>> that staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the >>> sections of the charter to facilitate your deliberations. >>> These entries are either based on existing charter language >>> / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have come up in >>> the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP >>> 3.0 conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items >>> highlighted in yellow that will require further feedback >>> before draft language can be added. Of course, it is up to >>> you to edit / delete / add as you deem appropriate. If there >>> is anything further that staff can do to facilitate your >>> deliberations and drafting, please let me know. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> >>> */Marika Konings/* >>> >>> /Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / >>> >>> /Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>> / >>> >>> // >>> >>> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ >>> >>> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive >>> courses ?and visiting >>> the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> . >>> / >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 16:12:43 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:12:43 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: <793aaa40-8fc1-86d8-84cd-d1172f1b873e@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> <793aaa40-8fc1-86d8-84cd-d1172f1b873e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, to not forget the idea mentioned in the NCSG webinar, we will have an NCSG group for the EPDP and related policies (while focussing on the former). we can create a dedicated mailing list and involve those interested and have experience on those issues to organize discussion and liaising with councillors&PC, as it still the space to endorse NCSG positions. in meantime, let's populate the google doc. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 21:39, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > I see the need for a conflict resolution specialist to be there as a > resource for the community, not just the leadership team. Therefore status > would be similar to external legal counsel. > > cheers steph > > PS one Boardie is enough. I vote for Becky. > > > On 2018-06-14 04:17, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi , > > indeed we should flesh out positions here before sharing in council list > and coordinate our responses. I hope we can do tha bettert from now on. > > I dont think vice-chair can be a role for external facilitator or mediator > as chairing involve admin work (scheduling calls, review notes etc), > project management tasks, reporting to council and community and so on. a > facilitator and/or meditaor can be there as support for leadership team or > chair and intervene for some cases like faciliating discussion or resolve > conflict. they can be seens as resources. > There is also the idea of legal counsel we should introduce more in the > discussion. that is important to be agreed in term of resourcing. > > I understand that staff would like to have the minimal number in > leadership time to ensure quick responses when they ask them , however > there is always need to have vice-chair or co-chair to replace chair if > needed or be a backup. we can argue that EPDP team is not a long time > commitment, in such case we will need some mechanisms to ensure backup and > handle chair absence. > > for board, 1 liaison will be enough as board wll organize its work via a > board caucus and monitor the discussion. we need to be careful about the > number as we also want to keep representation from SO/AC to 1 and so > keeping the overall EPDP team size small. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 16:47, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Initial thoughts on EPDP leadership: >> >> 1 chair (from community) >> 1 vice chair (external facilitator / mediator) >> no more than that >> leadership not counted as part of the stakeholder group appointees (3/SG) >> >> but I can be persuaded otherwise... happy to hear other options. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 14 June 2018 4:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is >> found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained and >> the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. >> So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the >> composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in our >> calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. >> for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification >> including the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from >> implementation, and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our >> standpoint. We will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. >> We can create a working document we can populate and do that in >> collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points >> about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify the >> issues . >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> For further discussion... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Marika Konings >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 >>> Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and >>> EPDP Team Charter Templates >>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>> Cc: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has >>> gone ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well >>> as the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication >>> between the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest >>> that you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once >>> elements such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can >>> then be lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note >>> that staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the >>> charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based on >>> existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have >>> come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 >>> conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in >>> yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be >>> added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem >>> appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to facilitate >>> your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> >>> >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >>> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>> >>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>> >>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> . * >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 04:56:53 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 21:56:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please comment. Farzaneh ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: farzaneh badii Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG To: NCSG List Dear all please find attached a draft of operating procedures for the allocation of travel slots. I will share this with NCSG EC and PC as well for comments. You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will then discuss it at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the final version. If changes are made by EC after 8th July, we will inform you about it and give some time for comments and then approve at EC level. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_mwNFi S7YlUg5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 05:23:18 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 11:23:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter Templates In-Reply-To: References: <51129212-7CF8-4F96-87D0-5FF626872093@icann.org> <8xmkRhRiC2GMoE9vO1pNoDtKwF30uHwsXBp0lAWbQgq3p6cMjCVs6k0OGzxiE92Pv5oambTii93XjIVFJwAgu1mApHQ-g1F8Oz6eF-wBtaE=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi all, A reminder to populate google doc for EPDP charter with suggestions Best, Rafik On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 6:12 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > to facilitate our discussion and working together on common positons, I > uploaded the charter into google doc here > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rIuqrSlKCDwyVj-UiMRExyjh-sGddZzb3ihX-gB8yrQ/edit > > the initiation will just get the language mostly from the charter. > let's use the document. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 17:17, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi , >> >> indeed we should flesh out positions here before sharing in council list >> and coordinate our responses. I hope we can do tha bettert from now on. >> >> I dont think vice-chair can be a role for external facilitator or >> mediator as chairing involve admin work (scheduling calls, review notes >> etc), project management tasks, reporting to council and community and so >> on. a facilitator and/or meditaor can be there as support for leadership >> team or chair and intervene for some cases like faciliating discussion or >> resolve conflict. they can be seens as resources. >> There is also the idea of legal counsel we should introduce more in the >> discussion. that is important to be agreed in term of resourcing. >> >> I understand that staff would like to have the minimal number in >> leadership time to ensure quick responses when they ask them , however >> there is always need to have vice-chair or co-chair to replace chair if >> needed or be a backup. we can argue that EPDP team is not a long time >> commitment, in such case we will need some mechanisms to ensure backup and >> handle chair absence. >> >> for board, 1 liaison will be enough as board wll organize its work via a >> board caucus and monitor the discussion. we need to be careful about the >> number as we also want to keep representation from SO/AC to 1 and so >> keeping the overall EPDP team size small. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 ? 16:47, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Initial thoughts on EPDP leadership: >>> >>> 1 chair (from community) >>> 1 vice chair (external facilitator / mediator) >>> no more than that >>> leadership not counted as part of the stakeholder group appointees (3/SG) >>> >>> but I can be persuaded otherwise... happy to hear other options. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 14 June 2018 4:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> other than the standard language in template in certain sections that is >>> found usually in other charters, we are not supposed to be constrained and >>> the council as drafting team will have to discuss them. >>> So better as group we get to agree on some points. I think for the >>> composition/membership we have clear position as we discussed that in our >>> calls. for leadership, we need to discuss that further. >>> for the scope, we need to go through the temporary specification >>> including the annex, identify areas related policy to separate from >>> implementation, and do a triage of what is priorirty for this EPDP from our >>> standpoint. We will see later if there are commonalities with other groups. >>> We can create a working document we can populate and do that in >>> collaborative manner, not just discussing here. I understand some points >>> about picket fence were made but we have to do our homework to identify the >>> issues . >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Le mer. 13 juin 2018 ? 08:08, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> For further discussion... >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Marika Konings >>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:01 >>>> Subject: Fwd: [council] For your review - EPDP Initiation Request and >>>> EPDP Team Charter Templates >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>>> Cc: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As discussed during today?s extraordinary Council meeting, staff has >>>> gone ahead and prepared a template for the EPDP Initiation Request as well >>>> as the EPDP Team Charter (see attached). As there is some duplication >>>> between the Initiation Request and the Charter, staff would like to suggest >>>> that you focus your attention on the EPDP Team charter for now. Once >>>> elements such as scope and team composition have been agreed on, these can >>>> then be lifted from the charter into the EPDP Initiation Request. Also note >>>> that staff has taken the liberty to prepopulate some of the sections of the >>>> charter to facilitate your deliberations. These entries are either based on >>>> existing charter language / practices / procedures and/or aspects that have >>>> come up in the context of the discussions to date, including the PDP 3.0 >>>> conversations. In addition, staff has flagged some items highlighted in >>>> yellow that will require further feedback before draft language can be >>>> added. Of course, it is up to you to edit / delete / add as you deem >>>> appropriate. If there is anything further that staff can do to facilitate >>>> your deliberations and drafting, please let me know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marika >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>> >>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>> >>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>> . * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 05:44:48 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 11:44:48 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, I added few edits but I think it is quite exhaustive procedures. Best, Rafik Le dim. 17 juin 2018 ? 10:57, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Please comment. > > > Farzaneh > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: farzaneh badii > Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM > Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG > To: NCSG List > > > Dear all please find attached a draft of operating procedures for the > allocation of travel slots. I will share this with NCSG EC and PC as well > for comments. > > You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will then discuss it > at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the final version. If changes are made > by EC after 8th July, we will inform you about it and give some time for > comments and then approve at EC level. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_mwNFiS7YlUg5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing > > > Best > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 05:46:10 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 11:46:10 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, this is a reminder to review the proposed procedures for PIR rep appointment, Thanks. Best, Rafik Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 10:14, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > Thanks Ayden for the draft, I made some comments there and tweaks. we can > finalize it this week if all PC members chime in and review asap. > with regard to the process, PC can work on drafting and document it then > the documentation will be subject to NCSG EC review, we don't need to have > wide consultation on this as by the charter. > yes, I can coordinate the process. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ps after this we will come back to the discussion about PC procedures , > that was in pause for months now. > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 05:30, Ars?ne Tungali a > ?crit : > >> The procedures look great! These are to be followed thoroughly if there >> is enough time, i guess. I don?t know how long we have to submit the names >> to the PIR Board. >> >> And agree with the PC Chair to coordinate this process, if available. >> >> While waiting to know the timeline, are we soon sharing this document to >> the membership to receive inputs from them? >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, as >> PC Chair. >> >> - Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ayden, >> The draft seems reasonable and efficient. >> >> Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is >> applying. >> >> Cheers, >> Mart?n >> >> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of >> candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please >> feel free to suggest revisions: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing >> >> ?Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> Thanks for the note. >> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and >> adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to >> evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by >> when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set >> the timeline for this appointment. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> All, >>> >>> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the >>> Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not >>> get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing >>> applications since I will apply for the position. >>> >>> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest >>> using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >>> >>> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the >>> slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate >>> the representative. >>> >>> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that >>> since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide >>> the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >>> >>> 4. PIR Representative: >>> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the >>> past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, >>> NCUC-appointees, PC members). >>> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who >>> understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >>> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or >>> NCSG mailing lists. >>> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public >>> Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public >>> Interest Registry discussions and debates. >>> >>> C.Review and selection of candidates >>> >>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >>> >>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >>> >>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one >>> candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not >>> selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair >>> informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or >>> where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant >>> how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >>> >>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be >>> arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? >>> applications. >>> >>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially >>> but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >>> >>> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the >>> transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. >>> >>> Best >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jun 17 13:12:12 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 06:12:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzi, I've made some suggested edits too. The proposed Travel Support Guidelines (currently out for public comment) note that "barring emergencies" (which are not defined) replacement supported travellers will only be possible if 60 days or more notice is given to ICANN org. I note this because of #6 of the procedure - just something to be aware of, I suppose. It might not always be so easy to re-allocate a travel slot to another community member. ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 17 June 2018 4:44 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > I added few edits but I think it is quite exhaustive procedures. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 17 juin 2018 ? 10:57, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > >> Please comment. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: farzaneh badii >> Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM >> Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG >> To: NCSG List >> >> Dear all please find attached a draft of operating procedures for the allocation of travel slots. I will share this with NCSG EC and PC as well for comments. >> >> You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will then discuss it at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the final version. If changes are made by EC after 8th July, we will inform you about it and give some time for comments and then approve at EC level. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_mwNFiS7YlUg5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing >> >> BestFarzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 15:25:52 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:25:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden At thanks I had this guideline from Terri : *ADDITIONS*: All additional traveler requests MUST BE SUBMITTED 60 days prior to the meeting. The deadline date is *" " *. Requests past the 60-day deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability and may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups. *REPLACEMENTS*: TBD?s or drop replacements must be final 30 days prior to the meeting. The deadline date is "..". Replacement Requests past 30 days will be evaluated on a case by case basis by ICANN. Failure to replace TBD?s 30 days prior to the meeting will be considered a ?Drop.? Replacements will be billed for the original request dates even with if travel dates are reduced for the replacement. I agree that transferring is not easy but previously, there was little attempt to do anything about it. So these operating procedures can help fix that. Farzaneh On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Farzi, I've made some suggested edits too. > > The proposed Travel Support Guidelines (currently out for public comment) > note that "barring emergencies" (which are not defined) replacement > supported travellers will only be possible if 60 days or more notice is > given to ICANN org. I note this because of #6 of the procedure - just > something to be aware of, I suppose. It might not always be so easy to > re-allocate a travel slot to another community member. > > ?Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 17 June 2018 4:44 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Farzaneh, > > I added few edits but I think it is quite exhaustive procedures. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 17 juin 2018 ? 10:57, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> Please comment. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: farzaneh badii >> Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM >> Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG >> To: NCSG List >> >> >> Dear all please find attached a draft of operating procedures for the >> allocation of travel slots. I will share this with NCSG EC and PC as well >> for comments. >> >> You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will then discuss it >> at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the final version. If changes are made >> by EC after 8th July, we will inform you about it and give some time for >> comments and then approve at EC level. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_ >> mwNFiS7YlUg5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Jun 17 19:49:24 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 12:49:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <047ee617-e617-511f-5349-4b5deeabd6a8@mail.utoronto.ca> Since Arsene is not able to come either, is there a replacement action pending for his slot as well? Stephanie On 2018-06-17 08:25, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Ayden > > At thanks I had this guideline from Terri : > > *ADDITIONS*: All additional traveler requests MUST BE SUBMITTED 60 > days prior to the meeting.?The deadline date is*"?" *. Requests past > the 60-day deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. > All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject > to availability and may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their > funded traveler groups. > > *REPLACEMENTS*: TBD?s or drop replacements must be final 30 days prior > to the meeting.?The deadline date is?"..". Replacement Requests past > 30 days will be evaluated on a case by case basis by ICANN. Failure to > replace TBD?s 30 days prior to the meeting will be considered a > ?Drop.? Replacements will be billed for the original request dates > even with iftraveldates are reduced for the replacement. > > > I agree that transferring?is not easy but previously, there was little > attempt to do anything about it. So these operating procedures can > help fix that. > > > > Farzaneh > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > > Thanks Farzi, I've made some suggested edits too. > > The proposed Travel Support Guidelines (currently out for public > comment) note that "barring emergencies" (which are not defined) > replacement supported travellers will only be possible if 60 days > or more notice is given to ICANN org. I note this because of #6 of > the procedure - just something to be aware of, I suppose. It might > not always be so easy to re-allocate a travel slot to another > community member. > > ?Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 17 June 2018 4:44 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> I added few edits but I think it is quite exhaustive procedures. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?dim. 17 juin 2018 ??10:57, farzaneh badii >> > a >> ?crit?: >> >> Please comment. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *farzaneh badii* > > >> Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM >> Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots >> at NCSG >> To: NCSG List > > >> >> >> Dear all please find attached a draft of operating procedures >> for the allocation of travel slots. I will share this with >> NCSG EC and PC as well for comments. >> >> You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will then >> discuss it at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the final >> version. If changes are made by EC after 8th July, we will >> inform you about it and give some time for comments and then >> approve at EC level. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_mwNFiS7YlUg5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 20:15:34 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 13:15:34 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: <047ee617-e617-511f-5349-4b5deeabd6a8@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <047ee617-e617-511f-5349-4b5deeabd6a8@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I didn't know Arsene is not able to come. Arsene, are you having issues? It might be too late to be able to transfer airfare perhaps but might be possible to transfer hotel room. Let me know as soon as possible. I'll give it a try as soon as Arsene confirms he cannot attend. Thanks much. Farzaneh On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Since Arsene is not able to come either, is there a replacement action > pending for his slot as well? > > Stephanie > On 2018-06-17 08:25, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi Ayden > > At thanks I had this guideline from Terri : > > *ADDITIONS*: All additional traveler requests MUST BE SUBMITTED 60 days > prior to the meeting. The deadline date is *" " *. Requests past the > 60-day deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All > additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to > availability and may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded > traveler groups. > > > > *REPLACEMENTS*: TBD?s or drop replacements must be final 30 days prior to > the meeting. The deadline date is "..". Replacement Requests past 30 days > will be evaluated on a case by case basis by ICANN. Failure to replace > TBD?s 30 days prior to the meeting will be considered a ?Drop.? > Replacements will be billed for the original request dates even with if > travel dates are reduced for the replacement. > > > I agree that transferring is not easy but previously, there was little > attempt to do anything about it. So these operating procedures can help fix > that. > > > > > Farzaneh > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Thanks Farzi, I've made some suggested edits too. >> >> The proposed Travel Support Guidelines (currently out for public comment) >> note that "barring emergencies" (which are not defined) replacement >> supported travellers will only be possible if 60 days or more notice is >> given to ICANN org. I note this because of #6 of the procedure - just >> something to be aware of, I suppose. It might not always be so easy to >> re-allocate a travel slot to another community member. >> >> ?Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 17 June 2018 4:44 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> I added few edits but I think it is quite exhaustive procedures. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 17 juin 2018 ? 10:57, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> Please comment. >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: farzaneh badii >>> Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM >>> Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG >>> To: NCSG List >>> >>> >>> Dear all please find attached a draft of operating procedures for the >>> allocation of travel slots. I will share this with NCSG EC and PC as well >>> for comments. >>> >>> You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will then discuss it >>> at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the final version. If changes are made >>> by EC after 8th July, we will inform you about it and give some time for >>> comments and then approve at EC level. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_mwNFiS7YlUg >>> 5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> Best >>> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Mon Jun 18 05:01:33 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:01:33 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: I?ve argued this point with the IPC multiple times, that they are an advocacy group that does not have a monopoly on knowledge of intellectual property law, and that other groups in ICANN (including both NCSG and ICANN policy staff) contain some excellent and experienced experts in intellectual property law. David > On 14 Jun 2018, at 4:52 pm, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I have been consistently arguing that we want the training developed by a neutral third party (ie IAPP), not anyone from in the community, as that will inevitably lend itself to allegations of bias. I am sure the IPC would not be comfortable with us developing a course on trademark law. Even though some of our members have that expertise. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:38, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: >> I don?t have any strong opinion (for now) about who designs the courses (outsiders or insiders) as long as the material will have to get approval from the Council before they can be implemented. If not the council, maybe WG members will have to agree on the content. And we will be represented there. That?s my opinion. >> >> Also, if you don?t want IPC folks to design a course on privacy, you can volunteer to do so and have them design anything trademark or so. I was simply building around what was offered as part of the discussion, which is still ongoing. I was not suggesting they do it. >> >> But yes, we can agree as a group and advance our opinion there on this particular matter. But as Rafik said, it is not yet the urgency. There are more urgent matters to work on such as charter etc. >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Jun 14, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >> >>> Sorry but I think we need to regroup. >>> >>> I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. >>> >>> I?m not comfortable with this. >>> >>> Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. >>> >>> Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. >>> >>> -Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Ars?ne Tungali> >>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >>>> To: Austin, Donna > >>>> Cc: GNSO Council List > >>>> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org ] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jun 18 05:07:47 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 22:07:47 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: References: <047ee617-e617-511f-5349-4b5deeabd6a8@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <17b3f5e7-7723-9452-e16e-c9cbe88f1a30@mail.utoronto.ca> June 4 Arsene said on the skype channel for councillors that he was not able to get a visa.? Should confirm, but that was what he said then.? It is a shame to waste the spot of someone else could come and participate. cheers SP On 2018-06-17 13:15, farzaneh badii wrote: > I didn't know Arsene is not able to come. Arsene, are you having > issues? It might be too late to be able to transfer airfare perhaps > but might be possible to transfer hotel room. Let me know as soon as > possible. I'll give it a try as soon as Arsene confirms he cannot > attend. Thanks much. > > Farzaneh > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > Since Arsene is not able to come either, is there a replacement > action pending for his slot as well? > > Stephanie > > On 2018-06-17 08:25, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Hi Ayden >> >> At thanks I had this guideline from Terri : >> >> *ADDITIONS*: All additional traveler requests MUST BE SUBMITTED >> 60 days prior to the meeting.?The deadline date is*"?" *. >> Requests past the 60-day deadline will be handled on a case by >> case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the >> 90-day deadline are subject to availability and may NOT be placed >> in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups. >> >> *REPLACEMENTS*: TBD?s or drop replacements must be final 30 days >> prior to the meeting.?The deadline date is?"..". Replacement >> Requests past 30 days will be evaluated on a case by case basis >> by ICANN. Failure to replace TBD?s 30 days prior to the meeting >> will be considered a ?Drop.? Replacements will be billed for the >> original request dates even with iftraveldates are reduced for >> the replacement. >> >> >> I agree that transferring?is not easy but previously, there was >> little attempt to do anything about it. So these operating >> procedures can help fix that. >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Ayden F?rdeline >> > wrote: >> >> Thanks Farzi, I've made some suggested edits too. >> >> The proposed Travel Support Guidelines (currently out for >> public comment) note that "barring emergencies" (which are >> not defined) replacement supported travellers will only be >> possible if 60 days or more notice is given to ICANN org. I >> note this because of #6 of the procedure - just something to >> be aware of, I suppose. It might not always be so easy to >> re-allocate a travel slot to another community member. >> >> ?Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 17 June 2018 4:44 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >>> Hi Farzaneh, >>> >>> I added few edits but I think it is quite exhaustive procedures. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le?dim. 17 juin 2018 ??10:57, farzaneh badii >>> > >>> a ?crit?: >>> >>> Please comment. >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *farzaneh badii* >> > >>> Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM >>> Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel >>> slots at NCSG >>> To: NCSG List >> > >>> >>> >>> Dear all please find attached a draft of operating >>> procedures for the allocation of travel slots. I will >>> share this with NCSG EC and PC as well for comments. >>> >>> You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will >>> then discuss it at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the >>> final version. If changes are made by EC after 8th July, >>> we will inform you about it and give some time for >>> comments and then approve at EC level. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_mwNFiS7YlUg5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 07:26:11 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 01:26:11 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: <4AC44192-3E57-48E8-88DD-DFAFCB3B3B35@nic.br> Message-ID: +1 to David and Ayden. You all saw my specific proposal for training, is already there, done and waiting to be used. And fulfills almost all criteria to ve implemented if ICANN can get around a decent negotiation (which I think should be doable). We don't have the time nor the politics, nor policy, to develop a training in time for epdp on GDPR ourselves (as icann community). We know IPC is biased and has shown willing ignorance on the matter, and they don't trust our interpretation. And ICANN legal clearly has it's own game as we can see with the lawsuit they are handling. This is one of those things we just need to get done to start working, egos aside. Cheers, Martin On Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:01 PM David Cake wrote: > I?ve argued this point with the IPC multiple times, that they are an > advocacy group that does not have a monopoly on knowledge of intellectual > property law, and that other groups in ICANN (including both NCSG and ICANN > policy staff) contain some excellent and experienced experts in > intellectual property law. > > David > > On 14 Jun 2018, at 4:52 pm, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I have been consistently arguing that we want the training developed by a > neutral third party (ie IAPP), not anyone from in the community, as that > will inevitably lend itself to allegations of bias. I am sure the IPC would > not be comfortable with us developing a course on trademark law. Even > though some of our members have that expertise. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:38, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > > I don?t have any strong opinion (for now) about who designs the courses > (outsiders or insiders) as long as the material will have to get approval > from the Council before they can be implemented. If not the council, maybe > WG members will have to agree on the content. And we will be represented > there. That?s my opinion. > > Also, if you don?t want IPC folks to design a course on privacy, you can > volunteer to do so and have them design anything trademark or so. I was > simply building around what was offered as part of the discussion, which is > still ongoing. I was not suggesting they do it. > > But yes, we can agree as a group and advance our opinion there on this > particular matter. But as Rafik said, it is not yet the urgency. There are > more urgent matters to work on such as charter etc. > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 14, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > > Sorry but I think we need to regroup. > > I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. > > I?m not comfortable with this. > > Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or > stakeholder group. > > Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is > not their area of expertise. > > -Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ars?ne Tungali > Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > To: Austin, Donna > Cc: GNSO Council List > This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with > you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups > (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a > course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design > (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have > the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this > discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 > UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an > important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and > appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I > don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. > The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I > don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from > the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not > undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that > there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about > GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a > pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training > course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary > specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be > compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the > integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika > noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some > elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some > elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more > sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we > expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we > don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but > we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the > ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a > lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties > than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but > because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use > Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a > lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, > perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets > that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide > this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org > ] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: > Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; > Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for > membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be > asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the > call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups > to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? > experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - > Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; > GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership > criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that > knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in > general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that > people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, > specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with > how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the > case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will > need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and > GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be > a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro > to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified > in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further > their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the > GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing > primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 > (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight > Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: > council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 > at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion > for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing > training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for > who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important > than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So > while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a > certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us > establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the > price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that > person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have > a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe > we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other > than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, > picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, > RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to > indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for > a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather > Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - > Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun > 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which > will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from > Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [ > mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org ] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 > 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council > List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of > proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very > interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial > 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, > and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm > an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either > trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case > i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My > question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot > of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency > concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with > data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, > independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my > basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, > is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an > operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For > that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With > that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, > or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 > 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, > 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky > though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by > intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and > setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with > staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to > participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: > +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org > ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: > Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: > [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy > Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the > proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that > Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the > Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is > crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to > demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and > legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any > community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting > the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of > data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but > I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common > understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data > Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral > International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only > use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request > that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and > reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts > here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be > given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be > privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, > please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not > intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate > this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice > contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, > by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax > laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive > Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of > Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF > Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. > AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report > (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ > council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon Jun 18 14:44:02 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:44:02 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Rafik, Am fine with the proposed procedures, its good to go for me. Kind Regards Poncelet On 17 June 2018 at 02:46, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > this is a reminder to review the proposed procedures for PIR rep > appointment, > Thanks. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 10:14, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Ayden for the draft, I made some comments there and tweaks. we can >> finalize it this week if all PC members chime in and review asap. >> with regard to the process, PC can work on drafting and document it then >> the documentation will be subject to NCSG EC review, we don't need to have >> wide consultation on this as by the charter. >> yes, I can coordinate the process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ps after this we will come back to the discussion about PC procedures , >> that was in pause for months now. >> >> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 05:30, Ars?ne Tungali a >> ?crit : >> >>> The procedures look great! These are to be followed thoroughly if there >>> is enough time, i guess. I don?t know how long we have to submit the names >>> to the PIR Board. >>> >>> And agree with the PC Chair to coordinate this process, if available. >>> >>> While waiting to know the timeline, are we soon sharing this document to >>> the membership to receive inputs from them? >>> >>> ----------------- >>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>> +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>> I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, as >>> PC Chair. >>> >>> - Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Ayden, >>> The draft seems reasonable and efficient. >>> >>> Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is >>> applying. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mart?n >>> >>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of >>> candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please >>> feel free to suggest revisions: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_ >>> uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> ?Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi Farzaneh, >>> >>> Thanks for the note. >>> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and >>> adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to >>> evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by >>> when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set >>> the timeline for this appointment. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii >>> a ?crit : >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the >>>> Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not >>>> get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing >>>> applications since I will apply for the position. >>>> >>>> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I >>>> suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >>>> >>>> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the >>>> slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate >>>> the representative. >>>> >>>> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that >>>> since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide >>>> the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >>>> >>>> 4. PIR Representative: >>>> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the >>>> past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, >>>> NCUC-appointees, PC members). >>>> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who >>>> understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >>>> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or >>>> NCSG mailing lists. >>>> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the >>>> Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in >>>> Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >>>> >>>> C.Review and selection of candidates >>>> >>>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >>>> >>>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >>>> >>>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one >>>> candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not >>>> selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair >>>> informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or >>>> where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant >>>> how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >>>> >>>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall >>>> be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? >>>> applications. >>>> >>>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially >>>> but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >>>> >>>> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and >>>> the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is >>>> challenged. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon Jun 18 14:55:43 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:55:43 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, I concur with all the suggested edits by Rafik and Ayden. Kind Regards Poncelet On 17 June 2018 at 10:12, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Farzi, I've made some suggested edits too. > > The proposed Travel Support Guidelines (currently out for public comment) > note that "barring emergencies" (which are not defined) replacement > supported travellers will only be possible if 60 days or more notice is > given to ICANN org. I note this because of #6 of the procedure - just > something to be aware of, I suppose. It might not always be so easy to > re-allocate a travel slot to another community member. > > ?Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 17 June 2018 4:44 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Farzaneh, > > I added few edits but I think it is quite exhaustive procedures. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 17 juin 2018 ? 10:57, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> Please comment. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: farzaneh badii >> Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM >> Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG >> To: NCSG List >> >> >> Dear all please find attached a draft of operating procedures for the >> allocation of travel slots. I will share this with NCSG EC and PC as well >> for comments. >> >> You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will then discuss it >> at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the final version. If changes are made >> by EC after 8th July, we will inform you about it and give some time for >> comments and then approve at EC level. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_ >> mwNFiS7YlUg5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 16:12:56 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:12:56 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The sticker price for the IAPP course is USD 550 per participant; even if ICANN did not get a bulk discount, that is only $11k for 21 participants (I would only expect ICANN to fund the course for appointed members). Some people will already be able to demonstrate a knowledge of basic data protection principles, so it is likely to me that the ask from ICANN org is only going to be around $5k for this essential resource. A Review Team of 21 people has a budget of $750,000/year - provided the EPDP has a similar budget, if not a higher one given its importance and need for external legal advice (which RTs don't budget for), this is not an unreasonable expense in my opinion. We might have to cut down on printing ($10k budgeted for printing per RT/year), but it's okay by me to save some trees. And I really think it's due diligence. We've got two options: appoint privacy experts and upskill them in DNS matters, or appoint DNS experts and upskill them in data protection. Given the former could easily earn $2,000 a day doing some GDPR consulting, it's not reasonable to expect to get that expertise for free, so the latter is the only option on the table... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 June 2018 6:26 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > +1 to David and Ayden. > > You all saw my specific proposal for training, is already there, done and waiting to be used. And fulfills almost all criteria to ve implemented if ICANN can get around a decent negotiation (which I think should be doable). We don't have the time nor the politics, nor policy, to develop a training in time for epdp on GDPR ourselves (as icann community). We know IPC is biased and has shown willing ignorance on the matter, and they don't trust our interpretation. And ICANN legal clearly has it's own game as we can see with the lawsuit they are handling. > > This is one of those things we just need to get done to start working, egos aside. > > Cheers, > Martin > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:01 PM David Cake wrote: > >> I?ve argued this point with the IPC multiple times, that they are an advocacy group that does not have a monopoly on knowledge of intellectual property law, and that other groups in ICANN (including both NCSG and ICANN policy staff) contain some excellent and experienced experts in intellectual property law. >> >> David >> >>> On 14 Jun 2018, at 4:52 pm, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> I have been consistently arguing that we want the training developed by a neutral third party (ie IAPP), not anyone from in the community, as that will inevitably lend itself to allegations of bias. I am sure the IPC would not be comfortable with us developing a course on trademark law. Even though some of our members have that expertise. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:38, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>> >>>> I don?t have any strong opinion (for now) about who designs the courses (outsiders or insiders) as long as the material will have to get approval from the Council before they can be implemented. If not the council, maybe WG members will have to agree on the content. And we will be represented there. That?s my opinion. >>>> >>>> Also, if you don?t want IPC folks to design a course on privacy, you can volunteer to do so and have them design anything trademark or so. I was simply building around what was offered as part of the discussion, which is still ongoing. I was not suggesting they do it. >>>> >>>> But yes, we can agree as a group and advance our opinion there on this particular matter. But as Rafik said, it is not yet the urgency. There are more urgent matters to work on such as charter etc. >>>> >>>> ----------------- >>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>> +243 993810967 >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry but I think we need to regroup. >>>>> >>>>> I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. >>>>> >>>>> I?m not comfortable with this. >>>>> >>>>> Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. >>>>> >>>>> Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. >>>>> >>>>> -Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: Ars?ne Tungali >>>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >>>>>> To: Austin, Donna >>>>>> Cc: GNSO Council List >>>>>> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > [winston.com](http://winston.com/) > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 16:19:16 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:19:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG In-Reply-To: <17b3f5e7-7723-9452-e16e-c9cbe88f1a30@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <047ee617-e617-511f-5349-4b5deeabd6a8@mail.utoronto.ca> <17b3f5e7-7723-9452-e16e-c9cbe88f1a30@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <-2zZvltcJBbOH2620hAbvrGwwTisKMlVPkabqn0ihoLNC5cHXStwfHxUDae9sGbdQ0Zzl1Pqvu8OtOearCPzl_sN1QidFmq7UNX9Eu8YTZ0=@ferdeline.com> Arsene, can you please advise if you are coming to Panama or not? I was understand the impression you were going to enter with a 'visa on arrival'? But maybe I am mistaken - please can you clarify urgently. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 June 2018 4:07 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > June 4 Arsene said on the skype channel for councillors that he was not able to get a visa. Should confirm, but that was what he said then. It is a shame to waste the spot of someone else could come and participate. > > cheers SP > > On 2018-06-17 13:15, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> I didn't know Arsene is not able to come. Arsene, are you having issues? It might be too late to be able to transfer airfare perhaps but might be possible to transfer hotel room. Let me know as soon as possible. I'll give it a try as soon as Arsene confirms he cannot attend. Thanks much. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> Since Arsene is not able to come either, is there a replacement action pending for his slot as well? >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> On 2018-06-17 08:25, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden >>>> >>>> At thanks I had this guideline from Terri : >>>> >>>> ADDITIONS: All additional traveler requests MUST BE SUBMITTED 60 days prior to the meeting. The deadline date is " " . Requests past the 60-day deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability and may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups. >>>> >>>> REPLACEMENTS: TBD?s or drop replacements must be final 30 days prior to the meeting. The deadline date is "..". Replacement Requests past 30 days will be evaluated on a case by case basis by ICANN. Failure to replace TBD?s 30 days prior to the meeting will be considered a ?Drop.? Replacements will be billed for the original request dates even with if travel dates are reduced for the replacement. >>>> >>>> I agree that transferring is not easy but previously, there was little attempt to do anything about it. So these operating procedures can help fix that. >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Farzi, I've made some suggested edits too. >>>>> >>>>> The proposed Travel Support Guidelines (currently out for public comment) note that "barring emergencies" (which are not defined) replacement supported travellers will only be possible if 60 days or more notice is given to ICANN org. I note this because of #6 of the procedure - just something to be aware of, I suppose. It might not always be so easy to re-allocate a travel slot to another community member. >>>>> >>>>> ?Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 17 June 2018 4:44 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>> >>>>>> I added few edits but I think it is quite exhaustive procedures. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le dim. 17 juin 2018 ? 10:57, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Please comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: farzaneh badii >>>>>>> Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:56 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Operating Procedures for allocation of travel slots at NCSG >>>>>>> To: NCSG List >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all please find attached a draft of operating procedures for the allocation of travel slots. I will share this with NCSG EC and PC as well for comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can comment on this document until 8th July, we will then discuss it at NCSG EC finalize it and send you the final version. If changes are made by EC after 8th July, we will inform you about it and give some time for comments and then approve at EC level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sSJWajPGAIz9_mwNFiS7YlUg5CYtKdN5HejtaVojXo0/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BestFarzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> ______________________________ >>>> >>>> _________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ >>>> >>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 16:52:36 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:52:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> Message-ID: <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but given Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we will have an accreditation model very soon as the community wants it), maybe it is... - Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) wrote: > Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the introduction in Annex I: Registration Directory Service Accreditation Authority (RDSAA). > > Thanks and we look forward to your further input. > > Fabricio Vayra| Perkins Coie LLP > > PARTNER > > D. +1.202.654.6255 > > From: Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM > To: 'accred-model at icann.org' > Subject: Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model > > Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model. This, following further comment and input from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust model. Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: > > - Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners and Agents > - Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data > > Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further developing this model. > > Thank you again for your input and support. > > Fabricio Vayra| Perkins Coie LLP > > PARTNER > > D. +1.202.654.6255 > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFT - WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 872560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 16:56:39 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:56:39 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Are there any objections to sharing this on the NCSG-Discuss list? I presume not as it is just a draft, and not final, but if we share it today we can give members four weeks to look over it and potentially comment, before the PC needs to review the final version. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 12 June 2018 2:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks again for the draft. > as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be tidy-up first before as second round of review or comments. > after that, we can share it in NCSG list. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 02:33, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I think we could share this with the NCSG list? >> >> -Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> >>>> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >>>> >>>> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel Support Guidelines: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon Jun 18 17:00:46 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:00:46 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: No Objections +1 On 18 June 2018 at 14:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi > > Are there any objections to sharing this on the NCSG-Discuss list? I > presume not as it is just a draft, and not final, but if we share it today > we can give members four weeks to look over it and potentially comment, > before the PC needs to review the final version. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 12 June 2018 2:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks again for the draft. > as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be tidy-up > first before as second round of review or comments. > after that, we can share it in NCSG list. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 02:33, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did >> not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but >> all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The >> comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I >> think we could share this with the NCSG list? >> >> -Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >> >> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel >> Support Guidelines: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreH >> oQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but >> please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that >> we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 17:01:53 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 23:01:53 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I would like to defer sharing this for 24 hours, I think there were several edits and we can review again. after that 24 horus passed, we can share the draft to NCSF list. Best, Rafik Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 22:56, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi > > Are there any objections to sharing this on the NCSG-Discuss list? I > presume not as it is just a draft, and not final, but if we share it today > we can give members four weeks to look over it and potentially comment, > before the PC needs to review the final version. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 12 June 2018 2:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks again for the draft. > as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be tidy-up > first before as second round of review or comments. > after that, we can share it in NCSG list. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 02:33, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did >> not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but >> all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The >> comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I >> think we could share this with the NCSG list? >> >> -Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >> >> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel >> Support Guidelines: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but >> please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that >> we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 17:04:38 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:04:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik; please note that I have reviewed and edited the Google Doc in order to resolve many of the comments that had been left already. So it might not be the same version that you reviewed a week or two ago. So please take a look when you can; I would like to get this out to NCSG members for their input sooner rather than later. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 June 2018 4:01 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I would like to defer sharing this for 24 hours, I think there were several edits and we can review again. after that 24 horus passed, we can share the draft to NCSF list. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 22:56, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Hi >> >> Are there any objections to sharing this on the NCSG-Discuss list? I presume not as it is just a draft, and not final, but if we share it today we can give members four weeks to look over it and potentially comment, before the PC needs to review the final version. >> >> Thanks, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 12 June 2018 2:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks again for the draft. >>> as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be tidy-up first before as second round of review or comments. >>> after that, we can share it in NCSG list. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 02:33, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I think we could share this with the NCSG list? >>>> >>>> -Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel Support Guidelines: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Mon Jun 18 17:24:53 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:24:53 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Ayden, thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to legitimise it anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it might do us more good than bad. We might stand on the position that the model has to be developed by the community (and in this regard this model has a major procedural flow), however, it means that we have to insist on the Council that the work on the accreditation should start urgently. I am afraid not everyone on the council would share the same sentiment - IPC/BC apparently could say they have a model proposal and CPH might potentially argue that they have other priorities. May be CPH could be convinced when they take into account Akram's position. I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we just somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because they might try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that the major parts of the community had no participation and no influence on the content might play a role in declining this process-wise. Would be happy to hear further thoughts.... Cheers, Tanya On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it > apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic > proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but > given Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we will > have an accreditation model very soon as the community wants it), > maybe it is... > > - Ayden?? > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) > wrote: > >> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >> that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the introduction >> in Annex I: Registration Directory Service Accreditation Authority >> (RDSAA). >> >> ? >> >> Thanks and we look forward to your further input. >> >> ? >> >> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* >> >> *PARTNER* >> >> D. +1.202.654.6255 >> >> ? >> >> *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM >> *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' >> *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >> >> ? >> >> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the >> Accreditation and Access Model.? This, following further comment and >> input from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust >> model.? Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: >> >> ? >> >> * Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners >> and Agents >> * Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data >> >> ? >> >> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further >> developing this model. >> >> ?? >> >> Thank you again for your input and support. >> >> ? >> >> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* >> >> *PARTNER* >> >> D. +1.202.654.6255 >> >> ? >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other >> confidential information. If you have received it in error, please >> advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message >> and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank >> you. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jun 18 17:30:15 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:30:15 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I am also of two minds... this is why I am trying to get a blog out on the matter, prior to Panama.? We need to explain a few of the fundamental facts about accreditation.? I thought I would try to do that in a very basic blog.? Given the actual number of requests for data that the registrars are receiving (and that the ccTLDs have been receiving prior to this whole GDPR thing) the volume may not support a tiered access model....so I think it is more important to comment to ICANN more broadly, not respond to them.? On the other hand....guess who ICANN listens to, we may therefore need to get a direct attack on the record.? We should discuss this in Panama in my view. cheers Steph On 2018-06-18 10:24, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Ayden, > > thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to legitimise > it anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it might do us > more good than bad. We might stand on the position that the model has > to be developed by the community (and in this regard this model has a > major procedural flow), however, it means that we have to insist on > the Council that the work on the accreditation should start urgently. > I am afraid not everyone on the council would share the same sentiment > - IPC/BC apparently could say they have a model proposal and CPH might > potentially argue that they have other priorities. May be CPH could be > convinced when they take into account Akram's position. > > I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the > content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we > just somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because > they might try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that > the major parts of the community had no participation and no influence > on the content might play a role in declining this process-wise. > > Would be happy to hear further thoughts.... > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > > On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it >> apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic >> proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but >> given Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we >> will have an accreditation model very soon as the community wants >> it), maybe it is... >> >> - Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) >> wrote: >> >>> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access >>> Model that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the >>> introduction in Annex I: Registration Directory Service >>> Accreditation Authority (RDSAA). >>> >>> >>> Thanks and we look forward to your further input. >>> >>> >>> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* >>> >>> *PARTNER* >>> >>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>> >>> >>> *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) >>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM >>> *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' >>> *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >>> >>> >>> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the >>> Accreditation and Access Model.? This, following further comment and >>> input from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust >>> model.? Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: >>> >>> >>> * Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners >>> and Agents >>> * Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data >>> >>> >>> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further >>> developing this model. >>> >>> >>> Thank you again for your input and support. >>> >>> >>> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* >>> >>> *PARTNER* >>> >>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other >>> confidential information. If you have received it in error, please >>> advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message >>> and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. >>> Thank you. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Mon Jun 18 17:30:52 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:30:52 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <074c0e39-640f-3d01-b98a-a9f522f3da16@mpicc.de> Thanks Rafik and Ayden, I will go through the document in the next 23 hours (that's what left from suggested 24h) :-) I might propose some edits, I see that the document is, indeed, different from what is used to be a week ago, but may be some surgery is still required (not a major one, but I would love to soften the language a wee bit bit in parts - Ayden hope you forgive me! :)) Okay, the clocks start ticking for me - 23 hours. Cheers, Tanya On 18/06/18 16:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks, Rafik; please note that I have reviewed and edited the Google > Doc in order to resolve many of the comments that had been left > already. So it might not be the same version that you reviewed a week > or two ago. So please take a look when you can; I would like to get > this out to NCSG members for their input sooner rather than later. > > Best wishes, Ayden?? > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 4:01 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> I would like to defer sharing this for 24 hours, I think there were >> several edits and we can review again. after that 24 horus passed, we >> can share the draft to NCSF list. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?lun. 18 juin 2018 ??22:56, Ayden F?rdeline > > a ?crit?: >> >> Hi >> >> Are there any objections to sharing this on the NCSG-Discuss >> list? I presume not as it is just a draft, and not final, but if >> we share it today we can give members four weeks to look over it >> and potentially comment, before the PC needs to review the final >> version. >> >> Thanks, Ayden?? >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 12 June 2018 2:55 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks? again for the draft. >>> as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be >>> tidy-up first before as second round of review or comments. >>> after that, we can share it in NCSG list. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le?mar. 12 juin 2018 ??02:33, Ayden F?rdeline >>> > a ?crit?: >>> >>> I have made further edits to the draft comment now. >>> Unfortunately I did not realise until half-way through that >>> I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but all my substantive, >>> non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The comment is >>> in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I >>> think we could share this with the NCSG list? >>> >>> -Ayden? >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >>>> >>>> Ayden?? >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working >>>>> so far ahead! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> I've added some text to our comment on the >>>>>> proposed?Community Travel Support Guidelines: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six >>>>>> weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft >>>>>> and add your comments/edits so that we can share this >>>>>> with members soon (this week ideally). >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Mon Jun 18 17:34:15 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:34:15 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Yeah, I think the broad action like explaining in general + a call for a community-developed model would be attacking this, er, paper (I won't even call it a model!) indirectly anyway. Once the community agrees to start the process of accreditation -- I believe there is no way to implement bilateral/unilateral actions of certain constituencies because it will contradict to the on-going process at ICANN -- or may be am na?ve but at least the risk of this IPC/BC "proposal" or whatever passing though anyhow would be significantly reduced. Cheers, Tanya On 18/06/18 16:30, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I am also of two minds... this is why I am trying to get a blog out on > the matter, prior to Panama.? We need to explain a few of the > fundamental facts about accreditation.? I thought I would try to do > that in a very basic blog.? Given the actual number of requests for > data that the registrars are receiving (and that the ccTLDs have been > receiving prior to this whole GDPR thing) the volume may not support a > tiered access model....so I think it is more important to comment to > ICANN more broadly, not respond to them.? On the other hand....guess > who ICANN listens to, we may therefore need to get a direct attack on > the record.? We should discuss this in Panama in my view. > > cheers Steph > > On 2018-06-18 10:24, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> >> Ayden, >> >> thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to >> legitimise it anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it >> might do us more good than bad. We might stand on the position that >> the model has to be developed by the community (and in this regard >> this model has a major procedural flow), however, it means that we >> have to insist on the Council that the work on the accreditation >> should start urgently. I am afraid not everyone on the council would >> share the same sentiment - IPC/BC apparently could say they have a >> model proposal and CPH might potentially argue that they have other >> priorities. May be CPH could be convinced when they take into account >> Akram's position. >> >> I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the >> content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we >> just somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because >> they might try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that >> the major parts of the community had no participation and no >> influence on the content might play a role in declining this >> process-wise. >> >> Would be happy to hear further thoughts.... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tanya >> >> >> On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it >>> apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic >>> proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but >>> given Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we >>> will have an accreditation model very soon as the community wants >>> it), maybe it is... >>> >>> - Ayden?? >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access >>>> Model that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the >>>> introduction in Annex I: Registration Directory Service >>>> Accreditation Authority (RDSAA). >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> Thanks and we look forward to your further input. >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* >>>> >>>> *PARTNER* >>>> >>>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM >>>> *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' >>>> *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of >>>> the Accreditation and Access Model.? This, following further >>>> comment and input from many parts of the community, is a much >>>> richer and robust model.? Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> * Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property >>>> Owners and Agents >>>> * Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further >>>> developing this model. >>>> >>>> ?? >>>> >>>> Thank you again for your input and support. >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* >>>> >>>> *PARTNER* >>>> >>>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other >>>> confidential information. If you have received it in error, please >>>> advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message >>>> and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. >>>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 17:34:33 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Hi, Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the deadline is in two days time... Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. > for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. > > I think 0.com is still reserved as in the same process that reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if 0.com is requested to be removed from the reserved list. > > for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs vis-a-vis [this comment](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en) on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment on this issue. I could find a personal [comment from Avri](https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html) back in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >> >> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >> >> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com (number zero)? I think they could... >> >> Ayden >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 17:35:44 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:35:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I am of one mind. And this has always beeny approach. Any comment on this from ncsg should be only a statement to the board warning them not to adopt it and provide reasons and send a copy to wp29 On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > I am also of two minds... this is why I am trying to get a blog out on the > matter, prior to Panama. We need to explain a few of the fundamental facts > about accreditation. I thought I would try to do that in a very basic > blog. Given the actual number of requests for data that the registrars are > receiving (and that the ccTLDs have been receiving prior to this whole GDPR > thing) the volume may not support a tiered access model....so I think it is > more important to comment to ICANN more broadly, not respond to them. On > the other hand....guess who ICANN listens to, we may therefore need to get > a direct attack on the record. We should discuss this in Panama in my view. > > cheers Steph > On 2018-06-18 10:24, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Ayden, > > thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to legitimise it > anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it might do us more good > than bad. We might stand on the position that the model has to be developed > by the community (and in this regard this model has a major procedural > flow), however, it means that we have to insist on the Council that the > work on the accreditation should start urgently. I am afraid not everyone > on the council would share the same sentiment - IPC/BC apparently could say > they have a model proposal and CPH might potentially argue that they have > other priorities. May be CPH could be convinced when they take into account > Akram's position. > > I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the > content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we just > somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because they might > try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that the major parts > of the community had no participation and no influence on the content might > play a role in declining this process-wise. > > Would be happy to hear further thoughts.... > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it apart, > or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic proposal.... I > hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but given Akram's comments > quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we will have an accreditation model > very soon as the community wants it), maybe it is... > > - Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) > wrote: > > Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model that > includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the introduction in Annex I: > Registration Directory Service Accreditation Authority (RDSAA). > > > > Thanks and we look forward to your further input. > > > > *Fabricio Vayra* *| **Perkins Coie LLP* > > *PARTNER* > > D. +1.202.654.6255 > > > *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) > *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM > *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' > > *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model > > > > Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the > Accreditation and Access Model. This, following further comment and input > from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust model. > Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: > > > > - Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners and > Agents > - Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data > > > > Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further > developing this model. > > > > Thank you again for your input and support. > > > > *Fabricio Vayra* *| **Perkins Coie LLP* > > *PARTNER* > > D. +1.202.654.6255 > > > > ------------------------------ > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential > information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by > reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 17:38:44 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:38:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I will go through it. I think we need an extension. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the > deadline is in two days time... > > Thanks, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those > who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue > is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and > followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. > for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for > non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from > ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will > encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these > uncertain auctions to fund community activities. > > I think 0.com is still reserved as in the same process that reserved > other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if > 0.com is requested to be removed from the reserved list. > > for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs >> vis-a-vis this comment >> >> on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some >> time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a >> comment on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >> back in >> 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >> >> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of >> O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am >> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >> >> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com >> (number zero)? I think they could... >> >> 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 > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 17:44:04 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 23:44:04 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hold on, some announcement to be made today and so IPC/BC wont be our main concern Rafik On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 11:36 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > > I am of one mind. And this has always beeny approach. Any comment on this > from ncsg should be only a statement to the board warning them not to adopt > it and provide reasons and send a copy to wp29 > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> I am also of two minds... this is why I am trying to get a blog out on >> the matter, prior to Panama. We need to explain a few of the fundamental >> facts about accreditation. I thought I would try to do that in a very >> basic blog. Given the actual number of requests for data that the >> registrars are receiving (and that the ccTLDs have been receiving prior to >> this whole GDPR thing) the volume may not support a tiered access >> model....so I think it is more important to comment to ICANN more broadly, >> not respond to them. On the other hand....guess who ICANN listens to, we >> may therefore need to get a direct attack on the record. We should discuss >> this in Panama in my view. >> >> cheers Steph >> On 2018-06-18 10:24, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> >> Ayden, >> >> thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to legitimise it >> anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it might do us more good >> than bad. We might stand on the position that the model has to be developed >> by the community (and in this regard this model has a major procedural >> flow), however, it means that we have to insist on the Council that the >> work on the accreditation should start urgently. I am afraid not everyone >> on the council would share the same sentiment - IPC/BC apparently could say >> they have a model proposal and CPH might potentially argue that they have >> other priorities. May be CPH could be convinced when they take into account >> Akram's position. >> >> I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the >> content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we just >> somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because they might >> try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that the major parts >> of the community had no participation and no influence on the content might >> play a role in declining this process-wise. >> >> Would be happy to hear further thoughts.... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tanya >> >> On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it >> apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic >> proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but given >> Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we will have an >> accreditation model very soon as the community wants it), maybe it is... >> >> - Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) >> wrote: >> >> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >> that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the introduction in >> Annex I: Registration Directory Service Accreditation Authority (RDSAA). >> >> >> >> Thanks and we look forward to your further input. >> >> >> >> *Fabricio Vayra* *| **Perkins Coie LLP* >> >> *PARTNER* >> >> D. +1.202.654.6255 >> >> >> *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM >> *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' >> >> *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >> >> >> >> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the >> Accreditation and Access Model. This, following further comment and input >> from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust model. >> Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: >> >> >> >> - Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners >> and Agents >> - Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data >> >> >> >> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further >> developing this model. >> >> >> >> Thank you again for your input and support. >> >> >> >> *Fabricio Vayra* *| **Perkins Coie LLP* >> >> *PARTNER* >> >> D. +1.202.654.6255 >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential >> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by >> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without >> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Jun 18 17:46:10 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:46:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Tx Ayden, I would think that we would need a full frontal response ASAP -- ideally from the CPH + NCSG -? that while we appreciate the effort, this is an IPC/BC response and an "accreditation model" largely written without actual knowledge of the GDPR (see training issues under discussion) itself. While we appreciate the effort, it is clearly just one input into the EPDP process. Given the work of the CPH in compliance which dominated their work for the last many months, they have not had time to review this "IPC/BC accreditation model" closely, and given that the organizations of this self-initiated process rejected out of hand anything the NCSG participants offered about limiting access to third parties, such as Intellectual Property Owners, this is not a fair, balanced, representative or legal document. I think this should be loud and prominent, in a letter *before Panama City*, from Farzi to Goran, Akram, Cyrus and posted on CircleID. /Short and sweet is fine. /If Graeme could co-sign, all the better. *Best to plant the landmine ASAP :-).* Best, Kathy On 6/18/2018 9:52 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it > apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic > proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but > given Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we will > have an accreditation model very soon as the community wants it), > maybe it is... > > - Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) > wrote: > >> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >> that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the introduction >> in Annex I: Registration Directory Service Accreditation Authority >> (RDSAA). >> >> >> Thanks and we look forward to your further input. >> >> >> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* >> >> *PARTNER* >> >> D. +1.202.654.6255 >> >> >> *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM >> *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' >> *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >> >> >> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the >> Accreditation and Access Model.? This, following further comment and >> input from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust >> model. Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: >> >> >> * Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners >> and Agents >> * Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data >> >> >> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further >> developing this model. >> >> >> Thank you again for your input and support. >> >> >> *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* >> >> *PARTNER* >> >> D. +1.202.654.6255 >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other >> confidential information. If you have received it in error, please >> advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message >> and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank >> you. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 17:46:52 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:46:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to support CROP). I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just try to meet this deadline? Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > I will go through it. I think we need an extension. > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the deadline is in two days time... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>> >>> I think 0.com is still reserved as in the same process that reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if 0.com is requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>> >>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs vis-a-vis [this comment](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en) on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment on this issue. I could find a personal [comment from Avri](https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html) back in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>> >>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>> >>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com (number zero)? I think they could... >>>> >>>> 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 > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 17:47:05 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 23:47:05 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, Bruna worked on some draft in the google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit I planned to ask for extension already for this week. Best, Rafik Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:38, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > I will go through it. I think we need an extension. > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the >> deadline is in two days time... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those >> who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue >> is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and >> followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for >> non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from >> ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will >> encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these >> uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >> >> I think 0.com is still reserved as in the same process that reserved >> other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if >> 0.com is requested to be removed from the reserved list. >> >> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs >>> vis-a-vis this comment >>> >>> on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some >>> time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a >>> comment on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >>> back in >>> 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>> >>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of >>> O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am >>> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>> >>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com >>> (number zero)? I think they could... >>> >>> 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 >> > -- > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 17:47:57 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:47:57 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: What do you mean? What kind of announcement might be coming, Rafik? Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 June 2018 4:44 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hold on, some announcement to be made today and so IPC/BC wont be our main concern > > Rafik > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 11:36 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > >> I am of one mind. And this has always beeny approach. Any comment on this from ncsg should be only a statement to the board warning them not to adopt it and provide reasons and send a copy to wp29 >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> I am also of two minds... this is why I am trying to get a blog out on the matter, prior to Panama. We need to explain a few of the fundamental facts about accreditation. I thought I would try to do that in a very basic blog. Given the actual number of requests for data that the registrars are receiving (and that the ccTLDs have been receiving prior to this whole GDPR thing) the volume may not support a tiered access model....so I think it is more important to comment to ICANN more broadly, not respond to them. On the other hand....guess who ICANN listens to, we may therefore need to get a direct attack on the record. We should discuss this in Panama in my view. >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> >>> On 2018-06-18 10:24, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> >>>> Ayden, >>>> >>>> thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to legitimise it anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it might do us more good than bad. We might stand on the position that the model has to be developed by the community (and in this regard this model has a major procedural flow), however, it means that we have to insist on the Council that the work on the accreditation should start urgently. I am afraid not everyone on the council would share the same sentiment - IPC/BC apparently could say they have a model proposal and CPH might potentially argue that they have other priorities. May be CPH could be convinced when they take into account Akram's position. >>>> >>>> I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we just somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because they might try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that the major parts of the community had no participation and no influence on the content might play a role in declining this process-wise. >>>> >>>> Would be happy to hear further thoughts.... >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but given Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we will have an accreditation model very soon as the community wants it), maybe it is... >>>>> >>>>> - Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) [](mailto:FVayra at perkinscoie.com) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the introduction in Annex I: Registration Directory Service Accreditation Authority (RDSAA). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and we look forward to your further input. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fabricio Vayra| Perkins Coie LLP >>>>>> >>>>>> PARTNER >>>>>> >>>>>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM >>>>>> To: 'accred-model at icann.org' [](mailto:accred-model at icann.org) >>>>>> Subject: Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >>>>>> >>>>>> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model. This, following further comment and input from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust model. Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners and Agents >>>>>> - Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further developing this model. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you again for your input and support. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fabricio Vayra| Perkins Coie LLP >>>>>> >>>>>> PARTNER >>>>>> >>>>>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 17:48:28 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:48:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I know. I wonder when they will make that announcement.. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:44 AM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hold on, some announcement to be made today and so IPC/BC wont be our main > concern > > > Rafik > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 11:36 PM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> >> I am of one mind. And this has always beeny approach. Any comment on this >> from ncsg should be only a statement to the board warning them not to adopt >> it and provide reasons and send a copy to wp29 >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >>> I am also of two minds... this is why I am trying to get a blog out on >>> the matter, prior to Panama. We need to explain a few of the fundamental >>> facts about accreditation. I thought I would try to do that in a very >>> basic blog. Given the actual number of requests for data that the >>> registrars are receiving (and that the ccTLDs have been receiving prior to >>> this whole GDPR thing) the volume may not support a tiered access >>> model....so I think it is more important to comment to ICANN more broadly, >>> not respond to them. On the other hand....guess who ICANN listens to, we >>> may therefore need to get a direct attack on the record. We should discuss >>> this in Panama in my view. >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> On 2018-06-18 10:24, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> >>> Ayden, >>> >>> thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to legitimise >>> it anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it might do us more >>> good than bad. We might stand on the position that the model has to be >>> developed by the community (and in this regard this model has a major >>> procedural flow), however, it means that we have to insist on the Council >>> that the work on the accreditation should start urgently. I am afraid not >>> everyone on the council would share the same sentiment - IPC/BC apparently >>> could say they have a model proposal and CPH might potentially argue that >>> they have other priorities. May be CPH could be convinced when they take >>> into account Akram's position. >>> >>> I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the >>> content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we just >>> somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because they might >>> try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that the major parts >>> of the community had no participation and no influence on the content might >>> play a role in declining this process-wise. >>> >>> Would be happy to hear further thoughts.... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Tanya >>> >>> On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it >>> apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic >>> proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but given >>> Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we will have an >>> accreditation model very soon as the community wants it), maybe it is... >>> >>> - Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) >>> wrote: >>> >>> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >>> that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the introduction in >>> Annex I: Registration Directory Service Accreditation Authority (RDSAA). >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and we look forward to your further input. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Fabricio Vayra* *| **Perkins Coie LLP* >>> >>> *PARTNER* >>> >>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>> >>> >>> *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) >>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM >>> *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' >>> >>> *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the >>> Accreditation and Access Model. This, following further comment and input >>> from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust model. >>> Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: >>> >>> >>> >>> - Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners >>> and Agents >>> - Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data >>> >>> >>> >>> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further >>> developing this model. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you again for your input and support. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Fabricio Vayra* *| **Perkins Coie LLP* >>> >>> *PARTNER* >>> >>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential >>> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by >>> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without >>> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 18:20:24 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> Message-ID: <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Thanks Rafik, Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. > > Best. > > Rafik > > On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > >> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is possible. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to Panama meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>> >>>> ?Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some input this week. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think so... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sending on behalf of the Council leadership >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ______________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 18 22:27:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:27:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: ICANN Appeals German Court Decision on GDPR / WHOIS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seems plausible that this court case will have implications on the work of the EPDP. What a waste of time and money this entire case is.. - Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 14 June 2018 6:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > as you may recall, ICANN requested an injunction against a registrar in germany regarding whois compliance and it was rejected. ICANN is appealling this decision https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-13-en (https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1216293-2018-06-13-en, https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1216309-2018-06-13-en) . > > it is not unexpected development and we will see what is the outcome of this appeal. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Tue Jun 19 05:09:10 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:09:10 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DE2BE88-20A8-4DC1-9C15-105DB40E8EA8@davecake.net> Excellent suggestion. If we are going to have a small focussed team, we should support them, and wheel reinvention is of limited value when solid commercial products are available. David > On 18 Jun 2018, at 9:12 pm, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > The sticker price for the IAPP course is USD 550 per participant; even if ICANN did not get a bulk discount, that is only $11k for 21 participants (I would only expect ICANN to fund the course for appointed members). Some people will already be able to demonstrate a knowledge of basic data protection principles, so it is likely to me that the ask from ICANN org is only going to be around $5k for this essential resource. A Review Team of 21 people has a budget of $750,000/year - provided the EPDP has a similar budget, if not a higher one given its importance and need for external legal advice (which RTs don't budget for), this is not an unreasonable expense in my opinion. We might have to cut down on printing ($10k budgeted for printing per RT/year), but it's okay by me to save some trees. And I really think it's due diligence. We've got two options: appoint privacy experts and upskill them in DNS matters, or appoint DNS experts and upskill them in data protection. Given the former could easily earn $2,000 a day doing some GDPR consulting, it's not reasonable to expect to get that expertise for free, so the latter is the only option on the table... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 6:26 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > >> +1 to David and Ayden. >> >> You all saw my specific proposal for training, is already there, done and waiting to be used. And fulfills almost all criteria to ve implemented if ICANN can get around a decent negotiation (which I think should be doable). We don't have the time nor the politics, nor policy, to develop a training in time for epdp on GDPR ourselves (as icann community). We know IPC is biased and has shown willing ignorance on the matter, and they don't trust our interpretation. And ICANN legal clearly has it's own game as we can see with the lawsuit they are handling. >> >> This is one of those things we just need to get done to start working, egos aside. >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 11:01 PM David Cake > wrote: >> I?ve argued this point with the IPC multiple times, that they are an advocacy group that does not have a monopoly on knowledge of intellectual property law, and that other groups in ICANN (including both NCSG and ICANN policy staff) contain some excellent and experienced experts in intellectual property law. >> >> David >> >>> On 14 Jun 2018, at 4:52 pm, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>> >>> I have been consistently arguing that we want the training developed by a neutral third party (ie IAPP), not anyone from in the community, as that will inevitably lend itself to allegations of bias. I am sure the IPC would not be comfortable with us developing a course on trademark law. Even though some of our members have that expertise. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:38, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: >>>> I don?t have any strong opinion (for now) about who designs the courses (outsiders or insiders) as long as the material will have to get approval from the Council before they can be implemented. If not the council, maybe WG members will have to agree on the content. And we will be represented there. That?s my opinion. >>>> >>>> Also, if you don?t want IPC folks to design a course on privacy, you can volunteer to do so and have them design anything trademark or so. I was simply building around what was offered as part of the discussion, which is still ongoing. I was not suggesting they do it. >>>> >>>> But yes, we can agree as a group and advance our opinion there on this particular matter. But as Rafik said, it is not yet the urgency. There are more urgent matters to work on such as charter etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------- >>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>> +243 993810967 >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry but I think we need to regroup. >>>>> >>>>> I?m not sure we have an NCSG consensus here. >>>>> >>>>> I?m not comfortable with this. >>>>> >>>>> Courses should be neutral and not designed by a constituency or stakeholder group. >>>>> >>>>> Really, the IPC design the data protection course? Respectfully that is not their area of expertise. >>>>> >>>>> -Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: Ars?ne Tungali> >>>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 23:20 >>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process >>>>>> To: Austin, Donna > >>>>>> Cc: GNSO Council List > >>>>>> This one kinda summarises the whole discussion, thanks Donna. I agree with you. To clarify: WG members will be selected by their respective groups (based on their own criteria), then these selected members will undertake a course/training that some of our members have volunteered to design (including Paul), plus some people suggested by Rubens to help them have the same understanding of the scope of this WG. That's what I got from this discussion and which I find useful. Thanks, Arsene 2018-06-13 23:53 UTC+02:00, Austin, Donna via council : > I think Marie has identified an important point. Each SG/SO will have their > own process for selecting and appointing their representatives/members to > the WG and in this regard I don?t think the Council can or should prescribe > any part of that process. The Council can certainly provide guidance, as > Marie has suggested, but I don?t believe the Council will any authority to > reject any person from the WG that has been appointed by an SG/SO, because > they don?t have not undertaken training in GDPR. > > That being the case, it does seem that there is a lot of support for the > idea that training of some form about GDPR would be a helpful. Perhaps, > rather than having the training as a pre-requisite, the WG members will be > required to undertake a training course as a group early in their tenure. > Given the temporary specification is intended to find a way for contracted > parties to be compliant with the GDPR regulation in a manner that maintains > the integrity of the WHOIS to the greatest extent possible, it would make > sense that any training course be developed in that context. As Erika noted, > GDPR is a complex law, but it does appear that there are some elements that > are more relevant to our discussion than others, and some elements that have > no relevance at all. To that end, it would make more sense to have a > training session that is tailored to the scope of what we expect will be > dealt with in the ePDP discussions. I would argue that we don?t need people > who are experts in the GDPR regulation on the WG, but we do need people who > are knowledgeable about its applicability in the ICANN context. By way of > example, I believe the RySG and RrSG now have a lot more people that > understand GDPR and its impact on contracted parties than we did 12 months > ago and not because they took a course on GDPR, but because they have had to > develop "practical, hands-on experience" to use Marie?s words, of GDPR in > the ICANN context. > > While we are spending a lot of time discussing the need or not for this GDPR > specific training, perhaps we could also give some thought to other > knowledge and skillsets that we think would be beneficial for the ePDP WG so > that we can provide this feedback to the SG/SO for their respective > selection processes. > > Donna > From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Marie > Pattullo > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:05 AM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Rubens Kuhl > ; GNSO Council List > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I agree with all of that Michele. I?d also advance that as we will be asking > for the WG to be populated with reps of the SGs/SOs etc., in the call for > members we should specify that we are counting on those groups to put > forward reps with the requisite ? practical, hands-on ? experience. > Marie > > From: council > > On > Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:25 PM > To: Rubens Kuhl >; GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > Rubens > > I agree. > > The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, > call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we > ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar > with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or > they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN?s processes in terms of > policy development work. > > In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed > will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy > and GDPR. > > While certification is "nice" I also agree that it should not be a > requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to > give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in > privacy / GDPR or anything else I?m sure that will help them further their > careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO > specifically is a training camp for people. > > As for providing primers ? I think it?s a good idea and if I can help I?d be > happy to. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: > https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: > https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: council > > on > behalf of Rubens Kuhl > > Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11 > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training > is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is > paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the > certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would > find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse > himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a > certification as requisite. > > And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) > should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because > it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World > Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options. > > As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal > development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse > investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the > bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer > sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG: > Picket Fence - Becky Burr > Trademarks - Heather Forrest > Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello > Registrar operations - Michele Neylon > RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck > > > Rubens > > > > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > > Thanks Carlos. > > Actually, you agree with me. I don?t think we should have any gatekeeping > barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone. But, if > we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don?t, it > shouldn?t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an > unbalanced ePDP WG. I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more > than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary. > I?m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the > steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will > result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1. > > Best, > Paul > > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org ] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM > To: McGrady, Paul D. > > Cc: Ayden F?rdeline >; GNSO > Council List > > Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed > Expedited Policy Development Process > > It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow > the initial 2/3 or so. > After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found > myself in disagreement with both of you. > Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer > in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP > in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different: > My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, > trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about > efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in > WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our > members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of > money! > The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: > Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-). > So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm > qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would > remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that > looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial > burden to the members of the CPH. > For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. > What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars. > With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as > member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision. > > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > ISOC Costa Rica Chapter > skype carlos.raulg > +506 8837 7176 > ________ > Apartado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > Thanks Ayden. > > Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected > by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel > that those participating in WG?s don?t understand the fundamentals of > trademark laws either. Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want > people to have the basics of trademark law as well. Perhaps instead of > using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop > curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting > forth some basic vocabulary. I?d be happy to participate with staff in the > effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with > staff in the effort from the data protection side. > > Best, > Paul > > > Paul D. McGrady > > Partner > > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 312-558-5963 > > F: +1 312-558-5700 > > Bio > | > VCard > | Email | > winston.com > > > > > From: council > [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ayden F?rdeline > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM > To: GNSO Council List > > > Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited > Policy Development Process > > Dear all, > > I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week > along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed > (thanks for doing this!). > > I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy > Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP > remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board > and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As > such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that > they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data > protection. > > I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the > EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have > completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this > would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there > should be a common understanding of essential terms. > > There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions > like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, > whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law > for over 20 years. > > For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that > ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable > costs in obtaining it. > > I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask > that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 06:18:41 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:18:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on PDP 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I also attached the report for reference. Best, Rafik Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks Rafik, > > Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the > comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they > are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the > realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. > > Best. > > > Rafik > > > On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > > Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is > possible. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > > I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension > for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for > everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO > council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the > expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. > so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to > Panama meeting. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have >> attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity >> of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit >> this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG >> position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >> >> ?Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some >> input this week. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I >>> am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be >>> helpful. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>> >>>> I think so... >>>> >>>> Steph >>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>> >>>> -- Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear colleagues, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. >>>> The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all >>>> discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>> >>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>> >>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>> . * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO PDP 3.0 - 8 May 2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 692229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 06:24:08 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:24:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi. while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not possible to get input. as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit . best, Rafik Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: > > - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com > > - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet > community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition > > I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of > activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity > building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at > the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities > that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to > support CROP). > > I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, and > given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and we > know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an extension > of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just try to meet > this deadline? > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > I will go through it. I think we need an extension. > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the >> deadline is in two days time... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those >> who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue >> is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and >> followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for >> non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from >> ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will >> encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these >> uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >> >> I think 0.com is still reserved as in the same process that reserved >> other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if >> 0.com is requested to be removed from the reserved list. >> >> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs >>> vis-a-vis this comment >>> >>> on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some >>> time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a >>> comment on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >>> back in >>> 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>> >>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of >>> O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am >>> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>> >>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com >>> (number zero)? I think they could... >>> >>> 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 >> > -- > Farzaneh > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 06:34:15 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:34:15 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <9TqLBwIPS_mhG2fO7R9JYKZnb28TkW5M4ZvgmxzxEJc6X9P5Remd7kHiVezNrUZirBHj7_-7bfmp2J36Qgwspb6rNnQjSHFAmqCR1LBxADA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, ICANN seems late as usual for the announcement but my understanding is there will be a proper consultation process for accreditation/access model and no it is not centered around IPC/BC model. so we don't need to comment on it. instead, we can propose an alternative model if we deem that necessary and/or explore others that can be acceptable for us and tweak them. as Stephanie mentioned, the need for tiered access may be not warranted due to the limited number of requests in practice. but I assume that ICANN would go anyway to satisfy different groups. Best, Rafik On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 11:48 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > What do you mean? What kind of announcement might be coming, Rafik? > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 4:44 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hold on, some announcement to be made today and so IPC/BC wont be our main > concern > > > Rafik > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 11:36 PM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> >> I am of one mind. And this has always beeny approach. Any comment on this >> from ncsg should be only a statement to the board warning them not to adopt >> it and provide reasons and send a copy to wp29 >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >>> I am also of two minds... this is why I am trying to get a blog out on >>> the matter, prior to Panama. We need to explain a few of the fundamental >>> facts about accreditation. I thought I would try to do that in a very >>> basic blog. Given the actual number of requests for data that the >>> registrars are receiving (and that the ccTLDs have been receiving prior to >>> this whole GDPR thing) the volume may not support a tiered access >>> model....so I think it is more important to comment to ICANN more broadly, >>> not respond to them. On the other hand....guess who ICANN listens to, we >>> may therefore need to get a direct attack on the record. We should discuss >>> this in Panama in my view. >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> On 2018-06-18 10:24, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> >>> Ayden, >>> >>> thank you. I am of two mind about this - I don't want us to legitimise >>> it anyhow, but not tearing it apart and not resisting it might do us more >>> good than bad. We might stand on the position that the model has to be >>> developed by the community (and in this regard this model has a major >>> procedural flow), however, it means that we have to insist on the Council >>> that the work on the accreditation should start urgently. I am afraid not >>> everyone on the council would share the same sentiment - IPC/BC apparently >>> could say they have a model proposal and CPH might potentially argue that >>> they have other priorities. May be CPH could be convinced when they take >>> into account Akram's position. >>> >>> I think we have to argue procedure-wise first without going into the >>> content of this proposal - otherwise by fighting about the content we just >>> somehow legitimise it more. Walking a thin line here, because they might >>> try to advance it and push it forward - but the point that the major parts >>> of the community had no participation and no influence on the content might >>> play a role in declining this process-wise. >>> >>> Would be happy to hear further thoughts.... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Tanya >>> >>> On 18/06/18 15:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Thoughts -- do we legitimise this process by commenting, tearing it >>> apart, or just pay no attention to it? It is a very problematic >>> proposal.... I hope it is not being taken seriously anywhere, but given >>> Akram's comments quoted in Domain Incite last week (i.e. we will have an >>> accreditation model very soon as the community wants it), maybe it is... >>> >>> - Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 18 June 2018 3:37 PM, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) >>> wrote: >>> >>> Please see attached version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >>> that includes tweaks to the second paragraph under the introduction in >>> Annex I: Registration Directory Service Accreditation Authority (RDSAA). >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and we look forward to your further input. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Fabricio Vayra* *| **Perkins Coie LLP* >>> >>> *PARTNER* >>> >>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>> >>> >>> *From:* Vayra, Fabricio (WDC) >>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:29 AM >>> *To:* 'accred-model at icann.org' >>> >>> *Subject:* Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.6 of the >>> Accreditation and Access Model. This, following further comment and input >>> from many parts of the community, is a much richer and robust model. >>> Notably, this version 1.6 contains new: >>> >>> >>> >>> - Annex D: Accreditation Approach for Intellectual Property Owners >>> and Agents >>> - Annex J: Lawful Bases for Access to WHOIS Data >>> >>> >>> >>> Many thanks to those who made constructive contributions to further >>> developing this model. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you again for your input and support. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Fabricio Vayra* *| **Perkins Coie LLP* >>> >>> *PARTNER* >>> >>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential >>> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by >>> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without >>> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jun 19 10:48:00 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 03:48:00 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. Best, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi. > > while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not possible to get input. > > as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit. > > best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: >> >> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >> >> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >> >> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to support CROP). >> >> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just try to meet this deadline? >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the deadline is in two days time... >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>>>> >>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>>>> >>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs vis-a-vis [this comment](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en) on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment on this issue. I could find a personal [comment from Avri](https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html) back in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com (number zero)? I think they could... >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 10:56:41 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:56:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure inclusion. there are only 6 open public comments now. we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. we are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without some discussion. Best, Rafik Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi, > > I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the > deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is > a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a > particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any > obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the > deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments > closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. > > Best, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi. > > while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think > they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction > first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on > the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension > at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not > possible to get input. > > as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit > . > > best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: >> >> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >> >> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet >> community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >> >> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of >> activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity >> building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at >> the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities >> that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to >> support CROP). >> >> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, and >> given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and we >> know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an extension >> of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just try to meet >> this deadline? >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the >>> deadline is in two days time... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those >>> who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue >>> is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and >>> followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but >>> for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate >>> from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will >>> encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these >>> uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>> >>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved >>> other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if >>> 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>> >>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs >>>> vis-a-vis this comment >>>> >>>> on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some >>>> time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a >>>> comment on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >>>> back >>>> in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>> >>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of >>>> O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am >>>> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >>>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >>>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >>>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >>>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>> >>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com >>>> (number zero)? I think they could... >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jun 19 11:04:03 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 04:04:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment). And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to require extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request them that is their prerogative. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. > I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure inclusion. > there are only 6 open public comments now. > we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. we are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without some discussion. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. >> >> Best, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not possible to get input. >>> >>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: >>>> >>>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >>>> >>>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >>>> >>>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to support CROP). >>>> >>>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just try to meet this deadline? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the deadline is in two days time... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs vis-a-vis [this comment](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en)on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment on this issue. I could find a personal [comment from Avri](https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html)back in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com(number zero)? I think they could... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 11:13:32 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:13:32 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new > accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment). > I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we can add the new consultation. > And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to require > extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request them that > is their prerogative. > > we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization and that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts. Best, Rafik > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi, > > comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and > before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of > course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. > I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" > since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or > with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment > was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure > inclusion. > there are only 6 open public comments now. > we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. we > are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying > till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without > some discussion. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the >> deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is >> a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a >> particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any >> obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the >> deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments >> closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. >> >> Best, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think >> they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction >> first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on >> the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension >> at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not >> possible to get input. >> >> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit >> . >> >> best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: >>> >>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >>> >>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet >>> community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >>> >>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of >>> activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity >>> building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at >>> the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities >>> that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to >>> support CROP). >>> >>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, >>> and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and >>> we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an >>> extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just >>> try to meet this deadline? >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the >>>> deadline is in two days time... >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those >>>> who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue >>>> is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and >>>> followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but >>>> for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate >>>> from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will >>>> encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these >>>> uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>>> >>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved >>>> other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if >>>> 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>>> >>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs >>>>> vis-a-vis this comment >>>>> on >>>>> the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, >>>>> however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment >>>>> on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >>>>> back >>>>> in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>>> >>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of >>>>> O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am >>>>> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >>>>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >>>>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >>>>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >>>>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with >>>>> 0.com(number zero)? I think they could... >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 13:34:23 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:34:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need an extension because i don't have the time to focus on it now. I do not agree with asking for extension is unprofessional. On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks > Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new >> accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment). >> > > I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we > can add the new consultation. > > >> And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to require >> extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request them that >> is their prerogative. >> >> > we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization and > that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts. > > Best, > > Rafik > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> >> comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and >> before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of >> course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. >> I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" >> since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or >> with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment >> was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure >> inclusion. >> there are only 6 open public comments now. >> we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. we >> are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying >> till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without >> some discussion. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >> Hi, >>> >>> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the >>> deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is >>> a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a >>> particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any >>> obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the >>> deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments >>> closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >> Hi. >>> >>> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think >>> they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction >>> first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on >>> the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension >>> at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not >>> possible to get input. >>> >>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit >>> . >>> >>> best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: >>>> >>>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >>>> >>> >>>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet >>>> community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >>>> >>>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of >>>> activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity >>>> building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at >>>> the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities >>>> that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to >>>> support CROP). >>>> >>>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, >>>> and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and >>>> we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an >>>> extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just >>>> try to meet this deadline? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the >>>>> deadline is in two days time... >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask >>>>> those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar >>>>> issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked >>>>> on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but >>>>> for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate >>>>> from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will >>>>> encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these >>>>> uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>>>> >>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved >>>>> other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if >>>>> 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs >>>>>> vis-a-vis this comment >>>>>> on >>>>>> the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, >>>>>> however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment >>>>>> on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >>>>>> back >>>>>> in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale >>>>>> of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am >>>>>> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >>>>>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >>>>>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >>>>>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >>>>>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with >>>>>> 0.com(number zero)? I think they could... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jun 19 16:53:21 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:53:21 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN Appeals German Court Decision on GDPR / WHOIS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8AD0488D-DFE1-4AA0-900B-AD60153702A8@benin2point0.org> I am not an expert in law but it also looks more like a desperate attempt (to intimidate) that will end up like ?ICANN takes Whois begging bowl to Europe, comes back empty?, *bis repetita* ! @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 18 Jun 2018, at 21:27, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Seems plausible that this court case will have implications on the work of the EPDP. What a waste of time and money this entire case is.. > > - Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 14 June 2018 6:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> as you may recall, ICANN requested an injunction against a registrar in germany regarding whois compliance and it was rejected. ICANN is appealling this decision https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-13-en (https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1216293-2018-06-13-en , https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1216309-2018-06-13-en ) . >> >> it is not unexpected development and we will see what is the outcome of this appeal. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jun 19 18:54:38 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:54:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I do think it is unprofessional when we miss a deadline; there have already been 12 comments submitted on this issue, and we seem to be a long way away from getting a comment together... and let's face it, we won't get one done this week or next week. At a minimum we're three weeks out from getting a consensus position together. There is no implied criticism here, it's just reality. We're really far behind and it isn't fair to the 12 people who submitted their comments by the deadline for staff to wait for us to draft something. I will submit some brief remarks in my personal capacity now, before the deadline, as this is an important issue that we should have been on top of. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 19 June 2018 12:34 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need an extension because i don't have the time to focus on it now. I do not agree with asking for extension is unprofessional. > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks >> >> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>> I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment). >> >> I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we can add the new consultation. >> >>> And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to require extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request them that is their prerogative. >> >> we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization and that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. >>>> I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure inclusion. >>>> there are only 6 open public comments now. >>>> we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. we are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without some discussion. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >> >>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>>>>> Hi. >>>>>> >>>>>> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not possible to get input. >>>>>> >>>>>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit. >>>>>> >>>>>> best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>>>>>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: >> >>>>>>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >> >>>>>>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to support CROP). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just try to meet this deadline? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>>>>>>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the deadline is in two days time... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>>>>>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >> >>>>>>>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >> >>>>>>>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs vis-a-vis [this comment](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en)on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment on this issue. I could find a personal [comment from Avri](https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html)back in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com(number zero)? I think they could... >> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Farzaneh > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jun 19 21:28:12 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:28:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: <03e301d407fa$8ecff9c0$ac6fed40$@palage.com> References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603ACEF3@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F603B0E88@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> <027101d4073a$adac8810$09059830$@palage.com> <7c6cd05a-138c-aeac-fa12-a238ef6e8d43@kathykleiman.com> <03e301d407fa$8ecff9c0$ac6fed40$@palage.com> Message-ID: See Palage?s proposal below. Seems an excellent idea to me to issue fines. -Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michael Palage > Date: On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 20:23 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model > To: 'John R. Levine' ,'Kathy Kleiman' > Cc: > John, So I think it is fair to say that no matter what Kathy or I say you will not be happy with any meaningful Data Subject centric safeguard, so this will be my last response on the list. So the "complex" problem we are seeking to solve is respecting the Fundamental Human Right to Privacy that Europeans have. Much like I respect my fellow Americans and their love of the Second Amendment, I have learned to respect European's passion for their Right to Privacy. Now the problem with ICANN and the IPC/BC solution is that there is no mechanism to make a Data Subject whole after their Personal Data has been improperly processed. All of the proposed safeguards are focused on limiting a third party to harm additional Data Subjects in the future. I just find that problematic. When Kathy I worked on the UDRP and Working Group B almost 20 years ago, we were on the opposite side of the issue. However, we recognized that any solution that ICANN proposed had to be modeled after well established international law, and respect the rights of both Complainant (Trademark Owner) and Respondent (Domain Registrant). What I tried to do in my proposal was model that seed of compromise that was so successful almost 20 years ago in connection with the UDRP. As Kathy noted there are ADR components in the Privacy Shield that provide for the resolution of disputes. You are also correct that there are requirements that businesses pay for these services and there are no fees to Data Subjects, which creates the potential for abuse. That is why I have been looking to modify the JAMS ADR rules to perhaps find a middle ground that balances the respect rights of the Data Subject and Controller/Processor. In speaking with a number of privacy attorneys, Data Subject rarely get compensated for violations of their rights, although DPA can impose substantial fines against the Controller/Processor. The sweet spot I was looking at in connection with the ADR mechanism was something URS "like". I think this group and ICANN has done a really good job delineating under what set of circumstances a request can be legally made. In fact I think it would be constructive if a User enumerated at the time of the search what basis they were acting upon. The URS "like" ADR process would make use of templates for the complaint and response forms and NO formal written opinion by the panel just a summary decision. I am still surveying privacy professionals but I think a fine in the range of $250 to $500 for a violation of the terms of services would not be unreasonable. However, this is still at the spaghetti throwing stage. The other important mechanism is the need to have a disincentive for people to abuse the system by filing abusive requests. There may be the need for some type of speed bump mechanism to mitigate against abusive filings. Still noodling on this safeguard but would appreciate any group feedback. One of the hard lessons I have learned in ICANN is that it is easy to criticize but it is really hard to find a solution to both complex and simple problems. Safe travels and I look forward to hopefully seeing you in Panama next week. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Accred-Model On Behalf Of John R. Levine Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 1:32 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: accred-model at icann.org Subject: Re: [Accred-Model] Version 1.6 of the Accreditation and Access Model > It's great when there is actually an easy solution. At least for the > many US companies, law firms, cybersecurity firms, and others (and > this a huge part of the group seeking access), they should > "self-certify" to the EU-US Privacy Shield, via procedures set up by > the US Department of Commerce and Federal Trade Commission. Well, at least until the EU courts kill privacy shield like they did Safe Harbor. Banks and non-profits such as CAUCE are not eligible for Privacy Shield (they're not regulated by the FTC or DOT.) For small organizations the PS rules are extremely conplex and there's a mandatory annual payment to cover potential arbitration costs. Can we back up and explain what problem this overcomplex "solution" is supposed to be solving here? Regards, John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ Accred-Model mailing list Accred-Model at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model @kathykleiman.com> @icann.org> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 02:40:42 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:40:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi , I think that is "solved" now as the extension was not granted. we can discuss how we can improve things later. I am not blaming anyone here. Best, Rafik Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 19:34, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need an extension > because i don't have the time to focus on it now. I do not agree with > asking for extension is unprofessional. > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks >> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new >>> accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment). >>> >> >> I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we >> can add the new consultation. >> >> >>> And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to require >>> extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request them that >>> is their prerogative. >>> >>> >> we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization and >> that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >> Hi, >>> >>> comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and >>> before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of >>> course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. >>> I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" >>> since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or >>> with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment >>> was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure >>> inclusion. >>> there are only 6 open public comments now. >>> we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. >>> we are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying >>> till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without >>> some discussion. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the >>>> deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is >>>> a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a >>>> particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any >>>> obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the >>>> deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments >>>> closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> Hi. >>>> >>>> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't >>>> think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff >>>> reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start >>>> working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. >>>> the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft >>>> if not possible to get input. >>>> >>>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit >>>> . >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: >>>>> >>>>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >>>>> >>>> >>>>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet >>>>> community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >>>>> >>>>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of >>>>> activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity >>>>> building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at >>>>> the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities >>>>> that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to >>>>> support CROP). >>>>> >>>>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, >>>>> and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and >>>>> we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an >>>>> extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just >>>>> try to meet this deadline? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the >>>>>> deadline is in two days time... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask >>>>>> those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar >>>>>> issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked >>>>>> on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but >>>>>> for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate >>>>>> from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will >>>>>> encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these >>>>>> uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved >>>>>> other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later >>>>>> if 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character >>>>>>> gTLDs vis-a-vis this comment >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, >>>>>>> however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment >>>>>>> on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >>>>>>> back >>>>>>> in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale >>>>>>> of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am >>>>>>> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >>>>>>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >>>>>>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >>>>>>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >>>>>>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with >>>>>>> 0.com(number zero)? I think they could... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> -- > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 02:55:12 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:55:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I volunteered for this but lost track of time, so am guilty! I also thought we had until Friday. I will look at it if I get the time tonight and see if I can submit something personally. Farzaneh On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:40 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi , > > I think that is "solved" now as the extension was not granted. we can > discuss how we can improve things later. I am not blaming anyone here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 19:34, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need an extension >> because i don't have the time to focus on it now. I do not agree with >> asking for extension is unprofessional. >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks >>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new >>>> accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment). >>>> >>> >>> I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we >>> can add the new consultation. >>> >>> >>>> And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to >>>> require extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request >>>> them that is their prerogative. >>>> >>>> >>> we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization >>> and that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and >>>> before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of >>>> course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. >>>> I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" >>>> since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or >>>> with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment >>>> was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure >>>> inclusion. >>>> there are only 6 open public comments now. >>>> we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. >>>> we are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying >>>> till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without >>>> some discussion. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the >>>>> deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is >>>>> a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a >>>>> particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any >>>>> obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the >>>>> deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments >>>>> closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't >>>>> think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff >>>>> reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start >>>>> working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. >>>>> the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft >>>>> if not possible to get input. >>>>> >>>>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following >>>>>> points: >>>>>> >>>>>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet >>>>>> community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of >>>>>> activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity >>>>>> building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at >>>>>> the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities >>>>>> that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to >>>>>> support CROP). >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, >>>>>> and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and >>>>>> we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an >>>>>> extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just >>>>>> try to meet this deadline? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the >>>>>>> deadline is in two days time... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask >>>>>>> those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar >>>>>>> issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked >>>>>>> on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN >>>>>>> but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely >>>>>>> separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is >>>>>>> that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on >>>>>>> these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved >>>>>>> other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later >>>>>>> if 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this >>>>>>> Monday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character >>>>>>>> gTLDs vis-a-vis this comment >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, >>>>>>>> however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment >>>>>>>> on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>> in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale >>>>>>>> of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am >>>>>>>> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >>>>>>>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >>>>>>>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >>>>>>>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >>>>>>>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with >>>>>>>> 0.com(number zero)? I think they could... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >> Farzaneh >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 02:57:26 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:57:26 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi, as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that we can coordinate our positions here. I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. please share your thoughts too. Best, Rafik ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. *From: *council on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 *To: *GNSO Council List *Subject: *[council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues I think we have at least two questions to address: 1. What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an EPDP? - 1 chair - 2 or more co-chairs - 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs - Some other model 1. Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP? Let?s discuss. PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your discussion): Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert Best, Paul ------------------------------ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jun 20 03:01:53 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:01:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> Message-ID: I am okay with just a Chair. Maybe a vice chair too, though I worry that would result in a stakeholder imbalance and might even be unnecessary. Given how small the membership of the EPDP is likely to be, we do not want too large a leadership team - 1 co-chair per SG, and what?s the point of even having members? ;-) I also think we should be firm that SO/ACs can only appoint 1 member. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:57, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that we can coordinate our positions here. > > I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). > > I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. > > please share your thoughts too. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. > > From: council on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." > Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 > To: GNSO Council List > Subject: [council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues > > I think we have at least two questions to address: > > - What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an EPDP? > > - 1 chair > - 2 or more co-chairs > - 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs > - Some other model > > - Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP? > > Let?s discuss. > > PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your discussion): > > Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert > > Best, > > Paul > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Wed Jun 20 04:30:10 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:30:10 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> Message-ID: The 1 Chair, plus several Vice-Chairs so each SG was represented in leadership, model worked well for the RDS WG. I?d recommend it even for relatively small groups - in that case, the Chair can do most of the work of leadership, but if the chair needs to make a difficult decision (such as to move on in the face of determined intransigence) they are able to do so with some authority. David > On 20 Jun 2018, at 8:01 am, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I am okay with just a Chair. Maybe a vice chair too, though I worry that would result in a stakeholder imbalance and might even be unnecessary. Given how small the membership of the EPDP is likely to be, we do not want too large a leadership team - 1 co-chair per SG, and what?s the point of even having members? ;-) > > I also think we should be firm that SO/ACs can only appoint 1 member. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:57, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that we can coordinate our positions here. >> >> I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). >> >> I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. >> >> please share your thoughts too. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. >> >> >> From: council > on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." > >> Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 >> To: GNSO Council List > >> Subject: [council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues >> >> >> >> I think we have at least two questions to address: >> >> >> >> What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an EPDP? >> 1 chair >> 2 or more co-chairs >> 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs >> Some other model >> >> >> Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP? >> >> >> Let?s discuss. >> >> >> >> PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your discussion): >> >> >> >> Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 06:58:14 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:58:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: <2eiWhgBYgsgcT-HI81MkvYIK-5WVWet3UgHP0EvepOpb_aRvbhMy6x6DZ6BwqDVei9Ust3lBCSC9nwXRGzVdFkoZRQrenEYMGAdV1NRxFG4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi everyone I did some research about the history of allocation of such domains. And came across really interesting comments. One worth referencing which I copy paste below. I am surprised that people are commenting on how the funds should be used! This is really not what ICANN asked to comment on. Am I missing something? It is pretty clear from page 6 that funds will go to nonprofit (s) and that it will remain confidential and will be used for public good. which is a terrible idea but it's not what we are asked to comment on. I might be wrong. I looked at the list of those who submitted comments and many of them had written a paragraph on how funds should be allocated! So I might be wrong. I also don't understand what the fuss is about these single letter domains being reserved! It is clear that they do not threaten security/stability of the Internet, they have not led to terrible trademark infringement ... why reserve it? And why regulate their allocation? They are scarce resource? Then auction is a good idea, which was decided a decade ago. The registries should be incentivized to keep auctioning these single domain names so I think they should decide what to do with the money. Give it to the charity or spend it on fancy cars or Internet stability or like Auerbach says just sell it to someone for some dollars . A rich ICANN has always led to bad decisions and ballooned number of staff and bad ideas. I am now feeling less guilty - it was not an important public comment only ALAC had submitted a comment up until I checked from the ICANN SO/ACs others were individuals . But I got to read some interesting stuff. First of all, Auerbach totally captured what I was thinking. we can just submit Auerbach comment:) **joke*** This issue is purely one of economic and business regulation. There is no issue here that relates to the technical stability of the internet as measured in terms of the ability of the upper layers of DNS to quickly, efficiently, and accurately transform DNS query packets into DNS reply packets without prejudice against any query source or query name. In other words, what is being discussed here is an imposition on the marketplace of domain names for no purpose other than manipulation of that marketplace. There is no technical reason why ICANN should have any policy on this matter. For ICANN to impose regulation in this area would be for ICANN, once agin, to engage in social and economic regulation that is not warranted by any risk to the technical infrastructure of the net and DNS. We all know that Overstock will turn heaven and earth to buy "o.com" for whatever price is asked. The only question is what should Verisign, the .com registry, do with the proceeds? Should the registry be allowed to retain those proceeds as a windfall profit? Or should the registry be required to use those proceeds to buy down the outrageous, fiat $7+ registry fee (using .com as an example of registry fees) and thus spreading the benefit to all registrants? The latter approach is more in keeping with the original idea that registries were to be largely nothing more than a cost+ service provider. *John Berryhill one of my fav domain lawyers:* Why only kill the Golden Goose once? Consider a combination of an initial auction coupled with an annual registration fee that is some fraction of the auction price. For example, "Auction + 10% Annual Fee" - If the auction is won at $1M, then the annual registration fee is $100K. Kurt can play with the proportion to whatever degree required. Alternatively, it would be great to take all of the domain applicants, provide them with suitable medieval weaponry, and turn them loose in an arena. The sole survivor wins the domain name. This would be a great ICANN meeting host event. I've been petitioning the ABA to advocate the renewal of "trial by combat" for years now, and the success of this method could be helpful. Farzaneh On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:55 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > I volunteered for this but lost track of time, so am guilty! I also > thought we had until Friday. I will look at it if I get the time tonight > and see if I can submit something personally. > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:40 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi , >> >> I think that is "solved" now as the extension was not granted. we can >> discuss how we can improve things later. I am not blaming anyone here. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 19:34, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need an extension >>> because i don't have the time to focus on it now. I do not agree with >>> asking for extension is unprofessional. >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new >>>>> accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we >>>> can add the new consultation. >>>> >>>> >>>>> And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to >>>>> require extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request >>>>> them that is their prerogative. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization >>>> and that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and >>>>> before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of >>>>> course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. >>>>> I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" >>>>> since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or >>>>> with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment >>>>> was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure >>>>> inclusion. >>>>> there are only 6 open public comments now. >>>>> we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. >>>>> we are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying >>>>> till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without >>>>> some discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the >>>>>> deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is >>>>>> a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a >>>>>> particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any >>>>>> obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the >>>>>> deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments >>>>>> closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> Hi. >>>>>> >>>>>> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't >>>>>> think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff >>>>>> reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start >>>>>> working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. >>>>>> the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft >>>>>> if not possible to get input. >>>>>> >>>>>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following >>>>>>> points: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the >>>>>>> Internet community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive >>>>>>> definition >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of >>>>>>> activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity >>>>>>> building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at >>>>>>> the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities >>>>>>> that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to >>>>>>> support CROP). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is >>>>>>> Wednesday, and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the >>>>>>> next week (and we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to >>>>>>> need an extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should >>>>>>> just try to meet this deadline? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline < >>>>>>> icann at ferdeline.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the >>>>>>>> deadline is in two days time... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask >>>>>>>> those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar >>>>>>>> issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked >>>>>>>> on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>>>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN >>>>>>>> but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely >>>>>>>> separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is >>>>>>>> that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on >>>>>>>> these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that >>>>>>>> reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may >>>>>>>> raise later if 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved >>>>>>>> list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this >>>>>>>> Monday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character >>>>>>>>> gTLDs vis-a-vis this comment >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, >>>>>>>>> however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment >>>>>>>>> on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri >>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>> in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the >>>>>>>>> sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I >>>>>>>>> am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an >>>>>>>>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome >>>>>>>>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN >>>>>>>>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put >>>>>>>>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with >>>>>>>>> 0.com(number zero)? I think they could... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 07:42:11 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:42:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> Message-ID: Rafik I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good. Farzaneh On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that > we can coordinate our positions here. > > I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but it > shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at small > size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to be > from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection > by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I > think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time in > process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). > > I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep > up to date but not participating in discussion. > > please share your thoughts too. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the > work is going on membership requirements in the charter. > > > *From: *council on behalf of "McGrady, > Paul D." > *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 > *To: *GNSO Council List > *Subject: *[council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues > > > > I think we have at least two questions to address: > > > > 1. What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an > EPDP? > > > - 1 chair > - 2 or more co-chairs > - 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs > - Some other model > > > > 1. Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for > leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own > leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for > the ePDP? > > > > Let?s discuss. > > > > PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your > discussion): > > > > Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert > > > > Best, > > Paul > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this > message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. > Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable > privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of > the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be > used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties > under applicable tax laws and regulations. > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Wed Jun 20 09:30:27 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:30:27 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> Message-ID: Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference between two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they are interchangeable when one person can't be present at the time-consuming meetings for whatever reason and they share the workload). I wouldn't favour the council selection - rather leave it to the group (or SSC, but I'd prefer the group selecting them). However, on the latter issue I'll go with any position PC develops - to me membership/size/participation is more important because if the group is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to no more 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a problem. These two are intertwined, IMHO. Cheers, Tanya On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: > Rafik > > I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good.? > Farzaneh > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi, > > as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I > hope that we can coordinate our positions here. > > I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership > composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to > keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and > vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself? and > we shouldn't jeoprodize participation.? Selection by the team > itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I > think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time > in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). > > I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there > to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. > > please share your thoughts too. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ? > > ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while > the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. > > > *From: *council > on behalf of "McGrady, > Paul D." > > *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 > *To: *GNSO Council List > > *Subject: *[council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues > > ? > > I think we have at least two questions to address: > > ? > > 1. ?What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an > EPDP?? > > * 1 chair > * 2 or more co-chairs > * 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs > * Some other model > > ? > > 2. ?Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated > for leadership and what is that process?? Historically, WG?s > select their own leadership and that is ratified by the > Council.? Is that the same plan for the ePDP? > > ? > > Let?s discuss.? > > ? > > PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for > your discussion): > > ? > > Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert > > ? > > Best, > > Paul > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > If this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended > to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this > message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice > contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be > used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under > applicable tax laws and regulations. > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jun 20 11:52:19 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 04:52:19 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think this is an important issue for us to comment on. Background Work did not begin on the allocation of reserved names until 2005-2007. Eventually, it was agreed by the GNSO Council to allow the allocation of the single letters in the legacy gTLDs and .biz and .info moved forward, as did .org. Those registries received significant fees or high registration fees -- $100,000 upwards, from what I understand -- but they did not actually apply them to do good for the community (despite those registries promising) to do that. No one knows where the money from .biz and .info went. The one exception is .org; PRI created a special project to support new NGOs. For various reasons, now resolved, the allocation of the .com single letters have been delayed. Verisign and ICANN have agreed on a trial release of o.com, and that all the proceeds must go to do 'good deeds' for the Internet community. Remember this is a trial. It's o.com today, but could be t.com (Twitter?), g.com (Google), a.com (AT&T? Alphabet? someone else) tomorrow... The earlier policy work of the Reserved Names Working Group also discussed some of the projects that could be funded by the auction funds, and NCSG members like Avri contributed to this. However, RSEPs were left to define their processes in more detail, which is why the .info, .biz, and .org allocations of single letters were all unique. This is from the RSEP and .com Registry amendment: Ten years ago the ICANN GNSO approved a document called the Single-Character Second-Level Domain Name (SC SLD) Allocation Framework. That Framework was posted for public comment back in 2007 and comments are summarized here. Consistent with that policy, the RSEP proposes that O.COM auction and proceeds ?will be allocated through an auction managed by a third party auction service provider selected by Verisign.? Second, Verisign has already designated several non-profit beneficiaries to receive the auction proceeds for O.Com. Nonprofit Beneficiary As referenced in the background section above, proceeds derived from the auction of the SCDN subject to this RSEP will be provided to at least one of the nonprofit organizations, or its successors, set forth on Exhibit A hereto. None of the auction proceeds will directly or indirectly be used to benefit Verisign, its affiliates, or its directors, officers, or employees, other than to the de minimis extent those proceeds are used by the nonprofit(s) to benefit the Internet community in general. The nonprofit's, including its successor's, mission will align the use of funds resulting from the auction of the SCDN toward areas of public good of the Internet community, which may include one or more of the following: - development, evolution, and use of open Internet protocols - enhancing the cybersecurity readiness and response of public and private sector entities - online safety for children - improving security, stability and universal accessibility of the Internet - capacity building for the benefit of the Internet community (such as assisting those in developing areas in applying to become registries and registrars) This is extremely narrow, though I am hopeful the terminology "may include" could allow for broader activities, and that is why I have put forward in my individual comments some alternative uses for these funds that would benefit the ICANN community. At a minimum, "capacity building for the benefit of the Internet community" should not be exclusively limited to a focus on growing registries and registrars. Today is the last day for comments. I hope to see this auction move forward, and for the proceeds to go to support the kind of activities that benefit all of the ICANN community. It may not be possible to get an NCSG comment together, but individual comments - if feasible - are equally welcomed. Remember, this isn't just about o.com, it's about all the other single character domains too. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 20 June 2018 5:58 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi everyone > > I did some research about the history of allocation of such domains. And came across really interesting comments. One worth referencing which I copy paste below. > > I am surprised that people are commenting on how the funds should be used! This is really not what ICANN asked to comment on. Am I missing something? It is pretty clear from page 6 that funds will go to nonprofit (s) and that it will remain confidential and will be used for public good. which is a terrible idea but it's not what we are asked to comment on. I might be wrong. I looked at the list of those who submitted comments and many of them had written a paragraph on how funds should be allocated! So I might be wrong. > > I also don't understand what the fuss is about these single letter domains being reserved! It is clear that they do not threaten security/stability of the Internet, they have not led to terrible trademark infringement ... why reserve it? And why regulate their allocation? They are scarce resource? Then auction is a good idea, which was decided a decade ago. The registries should be incentivized to keep auctioning these single domain names so I think they should decide what to do with the money. Give it to the charity or spend it on fancy cars or Internet stability or like Auerbach says just sell it to someone for some dollars . A rich ICANN has always led to bad decisions and ballooned number of staff and bad ideas. > > I am now feeling less guilty - it was not an important public comment only ALAC had submitted a comment up until I checked from the ICANN SO/ACs others were individuals . But I got to read some interesting stuff. First of all, Auerbach totally captured what I was thinking. we can just submit Auerbach comment:) **joke*** > > This issue is purely one of economic and business regulation. > > There is no issue here that relates to the technical stability of the internet as measured in terms of the ability of the upper layers of DNS to quickly, efficiently, and accurately transform DNS query packets into DNS reply packets without prejudice against any query source or query name. > > In other words, what is being discussed here is an imposition on the marketplace of domain names for no purpose other than manipulation of that marketplace. > > There is no technical reason why ICANN should have any policy on this matter. > > For ICANN to impose regulation in this area would be for ICANN, once agin, to engage in social and economic regulation that is not warranted by any risk to the technical infrastructure of the net and DNS. > > We all know that Overstock will turn heaven and earth to buy "o.com" for whatever price is asked. > > The only question is what should Verisign, the .com registry, do with the proceeds? > > Should the registry be allowed to retain those proceeds as a windfall profit? > > Or should the registry be required to use those proceeds to buy down the outrageous, fiat $7+ registry fee (using .com as an example of registry fees) and thus spreading the benefit to all registrants? > > The latter approach is more in keeping with the original idea that registries were to be largely nothing more than a cost+ service provider. > > John Berryhill one of my fav domain lawyers: > > Why only kill the Golden Goose once? > > Consider a combination of an initial auction coupled with an annual > registration fee that is some fraction of the auction price. > > For example, "Auction + 10% Annual Fee" - If the auction is won at $1M, then > the annual registration fee is $100K. Kurt can play with the proportion to > whatever degree required. > > Alternatively, it would be great to take all of the domain applicants, > provide them with suitable medieval weaponry, and turn them loose in an > arena. The sole survivor wins the domain name. This would be a great ICANN > meeting host event. > > I've been petitioning the ABA to advocate the renewal of "trial by combat" > for years now, and the success of this method could be helpful. > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:55 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > >> I volunteered for this but lost track of time, so am guilty! I also thought we had until Friday. I will look at it if I get the time tonight and see if I can submit something personally. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:40 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi , >>> >>> I think that is "solved" now as the extension was not granted. we can discuss how we can improve things later. I am not blaming anyone here. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 19:34, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>> >>>> I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need an extension because i don't have the time to focus on it now. I do not agree with asking for extension is unprofessional. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 17:04, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment). >>>>> >>>>> I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we can add the new consultation. >>>>> >>>>>> And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to require extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request them that is their prerogative. >>>>> >>>>> we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization and that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission. >>>>>>> I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional" since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure inclusion. >>>>>>> there are only 6 open public comments now. >>>>>>> we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. we are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without some discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 16:48, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a particular public comment (along with bias). I?m not sure there is any obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not possible to get input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 23:47, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to support CROP). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just try to meet this deadline? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the deadline is in two days time... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these uncertain auctions to fund community activities. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 06:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs vis-a-vis [this comment](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en)on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment on this issue. I could find a personal [comment from Avri](https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html)back in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com(number zero)? I think they could... >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jun 20 14:43:15 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:43:15 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> Message-ID: <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> I think it works well when there is one representative from every (major) stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair and vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is represented in the main considerations of scheduling, preparation, and presentation. This is how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. Otherwise, we wind up with situations like the Accreditation Groups with IPC as chair/lead, and BC as chair/lead. One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both sets of user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality (for there will be little here), balance is key :-)! Best, Kathy On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference between > two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they are > interchangeable when one person can't be present at the time-consuming > meetings for whatever reason and they share the workload). I wouldn't > favour the council selection - rather leave it to the group (or SSC, > but I'd prefer the group selecting them). However, on the latter issue > I'll go with any position PC develops - to me > membership/size/participation is more important because if the group > is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to no more > 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a problem. These > two are intertwined, IMHO. > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > > On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Rafik >> >> I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good. >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I >> hope that we can coordinate our positions here. >> >> I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership >> composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to >> keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and >> vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and >> we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team >> itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I >> think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time >> in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). >> >> I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there >> to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. >> >> please share your thoughts too. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members >> while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. >> >> >> *From: *council > > on behalf of "McGrady, >> Paul D." > >> *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 >> *To: *GNSO Council List > > >> *Subject: *[council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues >> >> I think we have at least two questions to address: >> >> 1. ?What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for >> an EPDP? >> >> * 1 chair >> * 2 or more co-chairs >> * 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs >> * Some other model >> >> 2. ?Depending on the answer to the above, who should be >> nominated for leadership and what is that process?? >> Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is >> ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP? >> >> Let?s discuss. >> >> PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for >> your discussion): >> >> Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. >> If this message has been received in error, please delete it >> without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended >> to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this >> message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice >> contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot >> be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under >> applicable tax laws and regulations. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jun 20 14:48:02 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:48:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <5R1q28IDGD_204IiRzvgDE_7bB0GpZDZNZbdHoKFe3NcOmDt0E-_7rc20ynPeIavz0KtUd6Z4LiZn517VxGJ1arREUZN1en558F_O7q99Fo=@ferdeline.com> The problem is that the RDS PDP WG crashed and therefore did not work :-( We have discussed trying something new at the Council level and, given how small the EPDP is likely to be, I think others are right to say we should keep the leadership to 1 neutral chair (hard to find we realise) and possibly 1 vice chair or a co-chair. I really don?t see the point in having a larger leadership team. We?ll only have 3 people on the EPDP, why do we want one to have to be neutral? I am not set on anything yet and can be persuaded otherwise, but above is my current train of thought. Thanks Best wishes, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 13:43, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > I think it works well when there is one representative from every (major) stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair and vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is represented in the main considerations of scheduling, preparation, and presentation. This is how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. Otherwise, we wind up with situations like the Accreditation Groups with IPC as chair/lead, and BC as chair/lead. > > One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both sets of user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality (for there will be little here), balance is key :-)! > > Best, Kathy > > On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > >> Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference between two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they are interchangeable when one person can't be present at the time-consuming meetings for whatever reason and they share the workload). I wouldn't favour the council selection - rather leave it to the group (or SSC, but I'd prefer the group selecting them). However, on the latter issue I'll go with any position PC develops - to me membership/size/participation is more important because if the group is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to no more 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a problem. These two are intertwined, IMHO. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tanya >> >> On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Rafik >>> >>> I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good. >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that we can coordinate our positions here. >>>> >>>> I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). >>>> >>>> I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. >>>> >>>> please share your thoughts too. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. >>>> >>>> From: council on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." >>>> Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 >>>> To: GNSO Council List >>>> Subject: [council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues >>>> >>>> I think we have at least two questions to address: >>>> >>>> - What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an EPDP? >>>> >>>> - 1 chair >>>> - 2 or more co-chairs >>>> - 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs >>>> - Some other model >>>> >>>> - Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP? >>>> >>>> Let?s discuss. >>>> >>>> PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your discussion): >>>> >>>> Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jun 20 14:52:53 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:52:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: <5R1q28IDGD_204IiRzvgDE_7bB0GpZDZNZbdHoKFe3NcOmDt0E-_7rc20ynPeIavz0KtUd6Z4LiZn517VxGJ1arREUZN1en558F_O7q99Fo=@ferdeline.com> References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> <5R1q28IDGD_204IiRzvgDE_7bB0GpZDZNZbdHoKFe3NcOmDt0E-_7rc20ynPeIavz0KtUd6Z4LiZn517VxGJ1arREUZN1en558F_O7q99Fo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Ayden, fair enough :-) But I think the RDS did not work for other reasons - namely, the ongoing refusal of certain members to believe the GDPR was real. That was not the job of the Chair/Vice-Chair. In that case, I think it was critical that Michele and David were alongside Chuck and Susan Kawaguchi in the RDS endeavor. Can you imagine if they had not been? When we needed something, we went to David and Michele... I think the principle still holds. I don't see neutrality in anyone's formula on this one. Absent that, balance is key (everything often weighs on it). I think you would be a great vice-chair, for example :-)! Best, K On 6/20/2018 7:48 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > The problem is that the RDS PDP WG crashed and therefore did not work :-( > > We have discussed trying something new at the Council level and, given > how small the EPDP is likely to be, I think others are right to say we > should keep the leadership to 1 neutral chair (hard to find we > realise) and possibly 1 vice chair or a co-chair. I really?don?t see > the point in having a larger leadership team. We?ll only have 3 people > on the EPDP, why do we want one to have to be neutral? > > I am not set on anything yet and can be persuaded otherwise, but above > is my current train of thought. Thanks > > Best wishes,?Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 13:43, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: >> >> I think it works well when there is one representative from every >> (major) stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair >> and vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is >> represented in the main considerations of scheduling, preparation, >> and presentation. This is how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. >> Otherwise, we wind up with situations like the Accreditation Groups >> with IPC as chair/lead, and BC as chair/lead. >> >> One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both >> sets of user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality >> (for there will be little here), balance is key :-)! >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> >> On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> >>> Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference >>> between two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they >>> are interchangeable when one person can't be present at the >>> time-consuming meetings for whatever reason and they share the >>> workload). I wouldn't favour the council selection - rather leave it >>> to the group (or SSC, but I'd prefer the group selecting them). >>> However, on the latter issue I'll go with any position PC develops - >>> to me membership/size/participation is more important because if the >>> group is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to >>> no more 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a >>> problem. These two are intertwined, IMHO. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Tanya >>> >>> >>> On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good. >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak < >>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I >>>> hope that we can coordinate our positions here. >>>> >>>> I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership >>>> composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying >>>> to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and >>>> vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself? >>>> and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation.? Selection by the >>>> team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit >>>> but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and >>>> spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). >>>> >>>> I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio >>>> there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. >>>> >>>> please share your thoughts too. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members >>>> while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. >>>> >>>> >>>> *From: *council >>> > on behalf of "McGrady, >>>> Paul D." > >>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 >>>> *To: *GNSO Council List >>> > >>>> *Subject: *[council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues >>>> >>>> I think we have at least two questions to address: >>>> >>>> 1. ?What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for >>>> an EPDP? >>>> >>>> * 1 chair >>>> * 2 or more co-chairs >>>> * 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs >>>> * Some other model >>>> >>>> 2. ?Depending on the answer to the above, who should be >>>> nominated for leadership and what is that process?? >>>> Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is >>>> ratified by the Council.? Is that the same plan for the ePDP? >>>> >>>> Let?s discuss. >>>> >>>> PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture >>>> for your discussion): >>>> >>>> Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and >>>> confidential. If this message has been received in error, >>>> please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this >>>> message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. >>>> Please do not disseminate this message without the permission >>>> of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not >>>> intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other >>>> taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and >>>> regulations. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Wed Jun 20 15:10:57 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:10:57 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> <5R1q28IDGD_204IiRzvgDE_7bB0GpZDZNZbdHoKFe3NcOmDt0E-_7rc20ynPeIavz0KtUd6Z4LiZn517VxGJ1arREUZN1en558F_O7q99Fo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <7132F22B-A622-4241-83A5-81D9D87F89D7@benin2point0.org> I also support this idea of fair representativity for every stakeholder. In fact, when we have a diverse leadership team it does mean that they will all lead and reach out all at the same time, but it does ensure that each stakeholder has a trusted Point of Contact in a good position to talk with. In my opinion, It will definitely balance decision-making processes. (Given that the team will comprise 10, 15 or 20 people, it still make sense. If it is less therefore it is useless) @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 20 Jun 2018, at 13:52, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Ayden, fair enough :-) > > But I think the RDS did not work for other reasons - namely, the ongoing refusal of certain members to believe the GDPR was real. That was not the job of the Chair/Vice-Chair. In that case, I think it was critical that Michele and David were alongside Chuck and Susan Kawaguchi in the RDS endeavor. Can you imagine if they had not been? > When we needed something, we went to David and Michele... I think the principle still holds. I don't see neutrality in anyone's formula on this one. Absent that, balance is key (everything often weighs on it). I think you would be a great vice-chair, for example :-)! > Best, K > > On 6/20/2018 7:48 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> The problem is that the RDS PDP WG crashed and therefore did not work :-( >> >> We have discussed trying something new at the Council level and, given how small the EPDP is likely to be, I think others are right to say we should keep the leadership to 1 neutral chair (hard to find we realise) and possibly 1 vice chair or a co-chair. I really don?t see the point in having a larger leadership team. We?ll only have 3 people on the EPDP, why do we want one to have to be neutral? >> >> I am not set on anything yet and can be persuaded otherwise, but above is my current train of thought. Thanks >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 13:43, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: >>> I think it works well when there is one representative from every (major) stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair and vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is represented in the main considerations of scheduling, preparation, and presentation. This is how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. Otherwise, we wind up with situations like the Accreditation Groups with IPC as chair/lead, and BC as chair/lead. >>> >>> One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both sets of user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality (for there will be little here), balance is key :-)! >>> >>> Best, Kathy >>> >>> On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>>> Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference between two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they are interchangeable when one person can't be present at the time-consuming meetings for whatever reason and they share the workload). I wouldn't favour the council selection - rather leave it to the group (or SSC, but I'd prefer the group selecting them). However, on the latter issue I'll go with any position PC develops - to me membership/size/participation is more important because if the group is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to no more 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a problem. These two are intertwined, IMHO. >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good. >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that we can coordinate our positions here. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). >>>>> >>>>> I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. >>>>> >>>>> please share your thoughts too. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: council > on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." > >>>>> Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 >>>>> To: GNSO Council List > >>>>> Subject: [council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think we have at least two questions to address: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an EPDP? >>>>> 1 chair >>>>> 2 or more co-chairs >>>>> 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs >>>>> Some other model >>>>> >>>>> Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP? >>>>> >>>>> Let?s discuss. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your discussion): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 15:11:51 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:11:51 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> <5R1q28IDGD_204IiRzvgDE_7bB0GpZDZNZbdHoKFe3NcOmDt0E-_7rc20ynPeIavz0KtUd6Z4LiZn517VxGJ1arREUZN1en558F_O7q99Fo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi. I would object. It looks like a zero -sum game strategy. Instead of working toward neutrality, we will try to get co-chairs or vice-chairs to keep each one in check. It doesn't look a good way to build team or encouraging for everyone to commit. Best, Rafik On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 8:53 PM Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Ayden, fair enough :-) > > But I think the RDS did not work for other reasons - namely, the ongoing > refusal of certain members to believe the GDPR was real. That was not the > job of the Chair/Vice-Chair. In that case, I think it was critical that > Michele and David were alongside Chuck and Susan Kawaguchi in the RDS > endeavor. Can you imagine if they had not been? > > When we needed something, we went to David and Michele... I think the > principle still holds. I don't see neutrality in anyone's formula on this > one. Absent that, balance is key (everything often weighs on it). I think > you would be a great vice-chair, for example :-)! > > Best, K > > On 6/20/2018 7:48 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > The problem is that the RDS PDP WG crashed and therefore did not work :-( > > We have discussed trying something new at the Council level and, given how > small the EPDP is likely to be, I think others are right to say we should > keep the leadership to 1 neutral chair (hard to find we realise) and > possibly 1 vice chair or a co-chair. I really don?t see the point in having > a larger leadership team. We?ll only have 3 people on the EPDP, why do we > want one to have to be neutral? > > I am not set on anything yet and can be persuaded otherwise, but above is > my current train of thought. Thanks > > Best wishes, Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 13:43, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > I think it works well when there is one representative from every (major) > stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair and > vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is represented in the > main considerations of scheduling, preparation, and presentation. This is > how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. Otherwise, we wind up with > situations like the Accreditation Groups with IPC as chair/lead, and BC as > chair/lead. > > One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both sets of > user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality (for there will > be little here), balance is key :-)! > > Best, Kathy > > On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference between two > co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they are interchangeable > when one person can't be present at the time-consuming meetings for > whatever reason and they share the workload). I wouldn't favour the council > selection - rather leave it to the group (or SSC, but I'd prefer the group > selecting them). However, on the latter issue I'll go with any position PC > develops - to me membership/size/participation is more important because if > the group is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to no > more 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a problem. These > two are intertwined, IMHO. > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Rafik > > I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good. > Farzaneh > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that >> we can coordinate our positions here. >> >> I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but >> it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at >> small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to >> be from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. >> Selection by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own >> merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending >> time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). >> >> I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep >> up to date but not participating in discussion. >> >> please share your thoughts too. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the >> work is going on membership requirements in the charter. >> >> >> *From: *council on behalf of "McGrady, >> Paul D." >> *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 >> *To: *GNSO Council List >> *Subject: *[council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues >> >> >> >> I think we have at least two questions to address: >> >> >> >> 1. What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an >> EPDP? >> >> >> - 1 chair >> - 2 or more co-chairs >> - 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs >> - Some other model >> >> >> >> 1. Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for >> leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own >> leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for >> the ePDP? >> >> >> >> Let?s discuss. >> >> >> >> PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your >> discussion): >> >> >> >> Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this >> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. >> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable >> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of >> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be >> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties >> under applicable tax laws and regulations. >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Wed Jun 20 15:25:00 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Tropina, Tatiana) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:25:00 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> <5R1q28IDGD_204IiRzvgDE_7bB0GpZDZNZbdHoKFe3NcOmDt0E-_7rc20ynPeIavz0KtUd6Z4LiZn517VxGJ1arREUZN1en558F_O7q99Fo=@ferdeline.com> , Message-ID: Agree with Rafik, I would object SG representation in chairmanship for two reasons: 1) it immediately sends the (wrong) message ?you don?t have to be neutral as a co-chair? 2) one chair and one vice-chair is easier to manage in terms of neutrality. If they are not neutral there are enough of balancing forces to point this out and fix this. We will have enough representation of different interests due to the group composition from even distribution of reps from SGs. Why do we have to bring this on the chairs level is something I am not convinced of. Or rather convinced otherwise. Cheers, Tanya ________________________________________ From: NCSG-PC [ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is] on behalf of Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: 20 June 2018 14:11 To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: ncsg-pc Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues Hi. I would object. It looks like a zero -sum game strategy. Instead of working toward neutrality, we will try to get co-chairs or vice-chairs to keep each one in check. It doesn't look a good way to build team or encouraging for everyone to commit. Best, Rafik On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 8:53 PM Kathy Kleiman > wrote: Ayden, fair enough :-) But I think the RDS did not work for other reasons - namely, the ongoing refusal of certain members to believe the GDPR was real. That was not the job of the Chair/Vice-Chair. In that case, I think it was critical that Michele and David were alongside Chuck and Susan Kawaguchi in the RDS endeavor. Can you imagine if they had not been? When we needed something, we went to David and Michele... I think the principle still holds. I don't see neutrality in anyone's formula on this one. Absent that, balance is key (everything often weighs on it). I think you would be a great vice-chair, for example :-)! Best, K On 6/20/2018 7:48 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: The problem is that the RDS PDP WG crashed and therefore did not work :-( We have discussed trying something new at the Council level and, given how small the EPDP is likely to be, I think others are right to say we should keep the leadership to 1 neutral chair (hard to find we realise) and possibly 1 vice chair or a co-chair. I really don?t see the point in having a larger leadership team. We?ll only have 3 people on the EPDP, why do we want one to have to be neutral? I am not set on anything yet and can be persuaded otherwise, but above is my current train of thought. Thanks Best wishes, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 13:43, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: I think it works well when there is one representative from every (major) stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair and vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is represented in the main considerations of scheduling, preparation, and presentation. This is how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. Otherwise, we wind up with situations like the Accreditation Groups with IPC as chair/lead, and BC as chair/lead. One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both sets of user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality (for there will be little here), balance is key :-)! Best, Kathy On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference between two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they are interchangeable when one person can't be present at the time-consuming meetings for whatever reason and they share the workload). I wouldn't favour the council selection - rather leave it to the group (or SSC, but I'd prefer the group selecting them). However, on the latter issue I'll go with any position PC develops - to me membership/size/participation is more important because if the group is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to no more 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a problem. These two are intertwined, IMHO. Cheers, Tanya On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: Rafik I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good. Farzaneh On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: Hi, as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that we can coordinate our positions here. I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. please share your thoughts too. Best, Rafik ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. From: council > on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." > Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 To: GNSO Council List > Subject: [council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues I think we have at least two questions to address: 1. What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an EPDP? * 1 chair * 2 or more co-chairs * 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs * Some other model 1. Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP? Let?s discuss. PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your discussion): Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert Best, Paul ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _______________________________________________ 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 From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jun 20 15:27:15 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:27:15 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: <7132F22B-A622-4241-83A5-81D9D87F89D7@benin2point0.org> References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> <5R1q28IDGD_204IiRzvgDE_7bB0GpZDZNZbdHoKFe3NcOmDt0E-_7rc20ynPeIavz0KtUd6Z4LiZn517VxGJ1arREUZN1en558F_O7q99Fo=@ferdeline.com> <7132F22B-A622-4241-83A5-81D9D87F89D7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: <8oa_sBO-7dWvl7_ChnIjMCERyrgM76pEG1X8txjiyAzir7ML-lTxRmoX3PUIIWt8EtloUOPG2ZB7ACK1TtcGPDqMhPP7pY0klUgE_qOCtmY=@ferdeline.com> We should have balanced decision-making processes anyway; I see the leadership as fulfilling more of an administrative function. They should not be making any final decisions. That competency lies with the members to advance and build recommendations based on consensus. The EPDP will have a very small membership - likely only 3 people per stakeholder group, 1 per SO/AC (though GAC apparently wants 5), and a Board liaison. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 20 June 2018 2:10 PM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > I also support this idea of fair representativity for every stakeholder. In fact, when we have a diverse leadership team it does mean that they will all lead and reach out all at the same time, but it does ensure that each stakeholder has a trusted Point of Contact in a good position to talk with. In my opinion, It will definitely balance decision-making processes. (Given that the team will comprise 10, 15 or 20 people, it still make sense. If it is less therefore it is useless) > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > >> On 20 Jun 2018, at 13:52, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> Ayden, fair enough :-) >> >> But I think the RDS did not work for other reasons - namely, the ongoing refusal of certain members to believe the GDPR was real. That was not the job of the Chair/Vice-Chair. In that case, I think it was critical that Michele and David were alongside Chuck and Susan Kawaguchi in the RDS endeavor. Can you imagine if they had not been? >> >> When we needed something, we went to David and Michele... I think the principle still holds. I don't see neutrality in anyone's formula on this one. Absent that, balance is key (everything often weighs on it). I think you would be a great vice-chair, for example :-)! >> >> Best, K >> >> On 6/20/2018 7:48 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> The problem is that the RDS PDP WG crashed and therefore did not work :-( >>> >>> We have discussed trying something new at the Council level and, given how small the EPDP is likely to be, I think others are right to say we should keep the leadership to 1 neutral chair (hard to find we realise) and possibly 1 vice chair or a co-chair. I really don?t see the point in having a larger leadership team. We?ll only have 3 people on the EPDP, why do we want one to have to be neutral? >>> >>> I am not set on anything yet and can be persuaded otherwise, but above is my current train of thought. Thanks >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 13:43, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> >>>> I think it works well when there is one representative from every (major) stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair and vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is represented in the main considerations of scheduling, preparation, and presentation. This is how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. Otherwise, we wind up with situations like the Accreditation Groups with IPC as chair/lead, and BC as chair/lead. >>>> >>>> One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both sets of user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality (for there will be little here), balance is key :-)! >>>> >>>> Best, Kathy >>>> >>>> On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>>> >>>>> Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference between two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they are interchangeable when one person can't be present at the time-consuming meetings for whatever reason and they share the workload). I wouldn't favour the council selection - rather leave it to the group (or SSC, but I'd prefer the group selecting them). However, on the latter issue I'll go with any position PC develops - to me membership/size/participation is more important because if the group is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to no more 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a problem. These two are intertwined, IMHO. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Tanya >>>>> >>>>> On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good. >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I hope that we can coordinate our positions here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> please share your thoughts too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: council on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." >>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 >>>>>>> To: GNSO Council List >>>>>>> Subject: [council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we have at least two questions to address: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for an EPDP? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - 1 chair >>>>>>> - 2 or more co-chairs >>>>>>> - 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs >>>>>>> - Some other model >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Depending on the answer to the above, who should be nominated for leadership and what is that process? Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let?s discuss. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture for your discussion): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Jun 20 15:28:35 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:28:35 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] O.com comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have to say, digging up Auerbach gems was one of the pleasures of my diss research.? He is great!? Lets just quote it! STephanie On 2018-06-19 23:58, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi everyone > > I did some research about the history of allocation of such domains. > And came across really interesting comments. One worth referencing > which I copy paste below. > > I am surprised that people are commenting on how the funds should be > used! This is really not what ICANN asked to comment on. Am I missing > something? It is pretty clear from page 6 that funds will go to > nonprofit (s) and that it will remain confidential and will be used > for public good. which is a terrible idea but it's not what we are > asked to comment on. I might be wrong. I looked at the list of those > who submitted comments and many of them had written a paragraph on how > funds should be allocated! So I might be wrong. > > > I also don't understand what the fuss is about these single letter > domains being reserved! It is clear that they do not threaten > security/stability of the Internet, they have not led to terrible > trademark infringement ... why reserve it? And why regulate their > allocation? They are scarce resource? Then auction is a good idea, > which was decided a decade ago. The registries should be incentivized > to keep auctioning these single domain names so I think they should > decide what to do with the money. Give it to the charity or spend it > on fancy cars or Internet stability or like Auerbach says just sell it > to someone for some dollars . A rich ICANN has always led to bad > decisions?and ballooned number of staff and bad ideas. > > I am now feeling less guilty - it was not an important public comment > only ALAC? had submitted a comment up until I checked from the ICANN > SO/ACs others were individuals . But I got to read some interesting > stuff. First of all, Auerbach totally captured what I was thinking. we > can just submit Auerbach comment:) **joke*** > > This issue is purely one of economic and business regulation. > > There is no issue here that relates to the technical stability of > theinternet as measured in terms of the ability of the upper layers of > DNSto quickly, efficiently, and accurately transform DNS query packets > intoDNS reply packets without prejudice against any query source or > query name.In other words, what is being discussed here is an > imposition on themarketplace of domain names for no purpose other than > manipulation ofthat marketplace.There is no technical reason why ICANN > should have any policy on thismatter.For ICANN to impose regulation in > this area would be for ICANN, onceagin, to engage in social and > economic regulation that is not warrantedby any risk to the technical > infrastructure of the net and DNS.We all know that Overstock will turn > heaven and earth to buy "o.com " forwhatever price is > asked.The only question is what should Verisign, the .com registry, do > withthe proceeds?Should the registry be allowed to retain those > proceeds as a windfallprofit?Or should the registry be required to use > those proceeds to buy down theoutrageous, fiat $7+ registry fee (using > .com as an example of registryfees) and thus spreading the benefit to > all registrants?The latter approach is more in keeping with the > original idea thatregistries were to be largely nothing more than a > cost+ service provider. > > > > > > > > > > *John Berryhill one of my fav domain lawyers:* > > Why only kill the Golden Goose once? > > Consider a combination of an initial auction coupled with an annual > registration fee that is some fraction of the auction price. > > For example, "Auction + 10% Annual Fee" - If the auction is won at $1M, then > the annual registration fee is $100K. Kurt can play with the proportion to > whatever degree required. > > Alternatively, it would be great to take all of the domain applicants, > provide them with suitable medieval weaponry, and turn them loose in an > arena. The sole survivor wins the domain name. This would be a great ICANN > meeting host event. > > I've been petitioning the ABA to advocate the renewal of "trial by combat" > for years now, and the success of this method could be helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:55 PM farzaneh badii > > wrote: > > I volunteered for this but lost track of time, so am guilty! I > also thought we had until Friday. I will look at it if I get the > time tonight and see if I can submit something personally. > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:40 PM Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > Hi , > > I think that is "solved" now as the extension was not granted. > we can discuss how we can improve things later. I am not > blaming anyone here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le?mar. 19 juin 2018 ??19:34, farzaneh badii > > a > ?crit?: > > I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need > an extension because i don't have the time to focus on it > now. I do not agree with asking for extension is > unprofessional. > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak > > > wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks > Le?mar. 19 juin 2018 ??17:04, Ayden F?rdeline > > a > ?crit?: > > I believe there are 11 comments open at present. > Plus this new accreditation model (though it does > not seem to be a formal public comment). > > > I refer to this > https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we > can add the new consultation. > > > And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss > deadlines and to require extensions. If other > constituencies or stakeholder groups request them > that is their prerogative. > > > we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and > characterization and that is fine. happy for other to > jump in and share their thoughts. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> comments are considered if the extension is >> requested beforehand and before staff starts >> working on the report. they can reject the >> request of course, or accept the extension and >> follow-up about its submission. >> I don't concur with you about the >> characterization as "unprofessional" since >> several groups like BC and others ask regularly >> for an extension, or with?your conclusion >> regarding our comment inclusion. last budget >> comment was submitted before the deadline, we >> have to review staff report to ensure inclusion. >> there are only 6 open public comments now. >> we got a draft, people can add what they think >> missing and try o edit. we are asking for few >> days and it is likely to get granted. I am for >> trying till the end. but I don't see how we can >> finalize one in 24 hours without some discussion. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik > >> Le?mar. 19 juin 2018 ??16:48, Ayden F?rdeline >> > > a ?crit?: > >> Hi, >> >> I have thought about this further and?think >> we should just?meet the deadline. It is >> unprofessional to request an extension, and I >> think this is a large reason why many of our >> comments do not make the staff report for a >> particular public comment?(along with bias). >> I?m not sure there is any obligation to >> consider our comments when they are submitted >> after the deadline, nor should there be, and >> given?there are another 10 comments closing >> over the next month,?we should just get this >> one out of the way. >> >> Best, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak >> > > wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> while I know that several people will be >>> flying to Panama, I don't think they will be >>> offline :) I will ask for an extension and >>> see staff reaction first as they factor in >>> their response when they have to start >>> working on the report. so we can get an >>> extension to Friday or later on. the >>> extension at least gives time to inform the >>> membership about the draft if not possible >>> to get input. >>> >>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can >>> work on and add elements >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> Rafik >> >>> Le?lun. 18 juin 2018 ??23:47, Ayden >>> F?rdeline >> > a ?crit?: >> >>> I suggest that our comment on this issue >>> includes the following points: >>> >>> - we support to move forward with the >>> auction of o.com >>> >>> >>> - we support having the funds support >>> the public good of the Internet >>> community, with capacity building having >>> a broad and inclusive definition >>> >>> I would like to see these auction funds >>> going to support the kind of activities >>> that benefit all of the ICANN community, >>> particularly capacity building >>> initiatives *that work* and allow our >>> members to engage more at the national >>> and regional level in broader Internet >>> governance activities that directly and >>> indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this >>> a trust fund to support CROP). >>> >>> I don't know how feasible an extension >>> is. The deadline is Wednesday, and given >>> many NCSG members will be offline for at >>> least the next week (and we know >>> sometimes, a week after a meeting), >>> we're going to need an extension of a >>> minimum of two weeks, maybe three. >>> Perhaps we should just try to meet this >>> deadline? >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>>> I will go through it. I think we need >>>> an extension. >>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden >>>> F?rdeline >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Is this comment coming together, or >>>> should I draft one? I note the >>>> deadline is in two days time... >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik >>>> Dammak >>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for raising this. it is >>>>> quite an old issue and need to ask >>>>> those who were involved before >>>>> 2007. On another hand, I think >>>>> the?similar issue is the 2-letters >>>>> characters and it is something >>>>> that Farzaneh worked on and >>>>> followed closely. she may give us >>>>> some guidance here. >>>>> for auctions, I don't think they >>>>> are not intended to be for ICANN >>>>> but for non-profit?organisations >>>>> serving internet community (likely >>>>> separate from ICANN). the idea is >>>>> worthy to be explored but my >>>>> concern is that will encourage >>>>> ICANN to leave more of its >>>>> responsibility and count on these >>>>> uncertain auctions to fund >>>>> community activities. >>>>> >>>>> I think 0.com is >>>>> still reserved as in the same >>>>> process that reserved other 1 >>>>> character like o.com >>>>> , so the security >>>>> risk may raise later if 0.com >>>>> is requested to be >>>>> removed from the reserved list. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think >>>>> Bruna will submit one by this Monday. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>> >>>>> Le?dim. 10 juin 2018 ??06:10, >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>> > a >>>>> ?crit?: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> So I have been reading up on >>>>> the allocation of single >>>>> character gTLDs vis-a-vis this >>>>> comment >>>>> on >>>>> the potential release of >>>>> O.com. This issue has been >>>>> brewing for some time, however >>>>> I was wondering if the >>>>> NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had >>>>> released a comment on this >>>>> issue. I could find a personal >>>>> comment from Avri >>>>> back >>>>> in 2007 but not quite anything >>>>> from us. Did we ever comment >>>>> on this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also, I was wondering our >>>>> thoughts on where the money >>>>> from the sale of O.com (and >>>>> potentially other single >>>>> character .coms) should go. I >>>>> am opposed to this money going >>>>> into the new gTLD Auction >>>>> Proceeds fund, an idea I have >>>>> seen floated around. I don't >>>>> want to create a big >>>>> burdensome programme here but >>>>> I do think we should spend the >>>>> funds on the ICANN community. >>>>> CROP and ABRs are being cut, >>>>> so perhaps these funds could >>>>> be put aside to advance and >>>>> sustain these community >>>>> programmes in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, could someone >>>>> reasonably confuse O.com >>>>> (letter 'o') with 0.com >>>>> (number zero)? I >>>>> think they could... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>> > -- > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Jun 20 15:45:27 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:45:27 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues In-Reply-To: References: <5A0FCF0D-7C8B-4309-9779-0700F02D9130@icann.org> <43BA70B9-078D-47A5-A65C-6E7011DEF9D6@icann.org> <4350f49e-d627-b5e6-37e7-60a0eb1d4c42@kathykleiman.com> <5R1q28IDGD_204IiRzvgDE_7bB0GpZDZNZbdHoKFe3NcOmDt0E-_7rc20ynPeIavz0KtUd6Z4LiZn517VxGJ1arREUZN1en558F_O7q99Fo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <56ad4297-67c4-7e8d-9d2f-bf7974b5ab31@mail.utoronto.ca> I must say that while I agree with Ayden that RDS did not work, it might be important to keep a member on the leadership team.? This will be on fast track, and given our history of being ignored, I think it a bit risky to give up that seat on the leadership team.? I agree with Kathy that the principle holds and might be even more important on this mad dash to get it done.... Having said that, the decision about who to put on theleadership team is a tough one.? We need folks behind the scenes helping with research as well... cheers STephanie On 2018-06-20 07:52, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Ayden, fair enough :-) > > But I think the RDS did not work for other reasons - namely, the > ongoing refusal of certain members to believe the GDPR was real. That > was not the job of the Chair/Vice-Chair. In that case, I think it was > critical that Michele and David were alongside Chuck and Susan > Kawaguchi in the RDS endeavor. Can you imagine if they had not been? > > When we needed something, we went to David and Michele... I think the > principle still holds. I don't see neutrality in anyone's formula on > this one. Absent that, balance is key (everything often weighs on it). > I think you would be a great vice-chair, for example :-)! > > Best, K > > > On 6/20/2018 7:48 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> The problem is that the RDS PDP WG crashed and therefore did not work >> :-( >> >> We have discussed trying something new at the Council level and, >> given how small the EPDP is likely to be, I think others are right to >> say we should keep the leadership to 1 neutral chair (hard to find we >> realise) and possibly 1 vice chair or a co-chair. I really?don?t see >> the point in having a larger leadership team. We?ll only have 3 >> people on the EPDP, why do we want one to have to be neutral? >> >> I am not set on anything yet and can be persuaded otherwise, but >> above is my current train of thought. Thanks >> >> Best wishes,?Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 13:43, Kathy Kleiman > > wrote: >>> >>> I think it works well when there is one representative from every >>> (major) stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair >>> and vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is >>> represented in the main considerations of scheduling, preparation, >>> and presentation. This is how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. >>> Otherwise, we wind up with situations like the Accreditation Groups >>> with IPC as chair/lead, and BC as chair/lead. >>> >>> One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both >>> sets of user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality >>> (for there will be little here), balance is key :-)! >>> >>> Best, Kathy >>> >>> >>> On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference >>>> between two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they >>>> are interchangeable when one person can't be present at the >>>> time-consuming meetings for whatever reason and they share the >>>> workload). I wouldn't favour the council selection - rather leave >>>> it to the group (or SSC, but I'd prefer the group selecting them). >>>> However, on the latter issue I'll go with any position PC develops >>>> - to me membership/size/participation is more important because if >>>> the group is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing >>>> it to no more 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of >>>> a problem. These two are intertwined, IMHO. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be >>>>> good. >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak < >>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I >>>>> hope that we can coordinate our positions here. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership >>>>> composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying >>>>> to keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair >>>>> and vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team >>>>> itself? and we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection >>>>> by the team itself is fine. appointment by council has its own >>>>> merit but I think that may lead to over-engineered solution >>>>> and spending time in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?). >>>>> >>>>> I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio >>>>> there to keep up to date but not participating in discussion. >>>>> >>>>> please share your thoughts too. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members >>>>> while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From: *council >>>> > on behalf of >>>>> "McGrady, Paul D." >>>> > >>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14 >>>>> *To: *GNSO Council List >>>> > >>>>> *Subject: *[council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues >>>>> >>>>> I think we have at least two questions to address: >>>>> >>>>> 1. ?What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team >>>>> for an EPDP? >>>>> >>>>> * 1 chair >>>>> * 2 or more co-chairs >>>>> * 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs >>>>> * Some other model >>>>> >>>>> 2. ?Depending on the answer to the above, who should be >>>>> nominated for leadership and what is that process?? >>>>> Historically, WG?s select their own leadership and that is >>>>> ratified by the Council.? Is that the same plan for the ePDP? >>>>> >>>>> Let?s discuss. >>>>> >>>>> PS: From the chat on today?s call I saw (and want to capture >>>>> for your discussion): >>>>> >>>>> Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and >>>>> confidential. If this message has been received in error, >>>>> please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this >>>>> message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. >>>>> Please do not disseminate this message without the permission >>>>> of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not >>>>> intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other >>>>> taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and >>>>> regulations. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 21 15:56:53 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:56:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on PDP 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. > > I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I also attached the report for reference. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Thanks Rafik, >> >> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is possible. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>>>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to Panama meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>>>> >>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some input this week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be helpful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think so... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sending on behalf of the Council leadership >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu Jun 21 16:05:44 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:05:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <649bfbf7-6043-d70b-88e1-7095a9db7e77@kathykleiman.com> Ayden, could you post the paper again?? These have been busy times! Tx, K On 6/21/2018 8:56 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my > input (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to > it, I would like it to be taken forward to the working session this > Monday. I think it is an important addition. There are likely other > ideas that I haven't thought of too - if others have ideas please > share them. Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> SG/C leaders will be?reached to see if/when the input is provided on >> PDP 3.0 and also inform?them that is being on the agenda on GNSO >> working session on Monday. We may also add one session but that >> depends of the progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation >> is to get input from SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I >> think we can collect suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. >> >> I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit >> in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. >> I also attached the report for reference. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> Le?mar. 19 juin 2018 ??00:20, Ayden F?rdeline > > a ?crit?: >> >> Thanks Rafik, >> >> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in >> the comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, >> just so they are there and can be considered... I am thinking it >> is not outside the realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP >> 3.0 in Panama? >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" >> > wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an >>> extension is possible. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get >>>> an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked >>>> most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. >>>> as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we >>>> count on getting input for the report. the expectation is >>>> to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, >>>> hopefully prior to Panama meeting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le?dim. 10 juin 2018 ??05:16, Ayden F?rdeline >>>> > a ?crit?: >>>> >>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the >>>> discussion paper, and have attached a suggested >>>> additional incremental improvement to?4.3 'Complexity >>>> of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am >>>> happy to submit this in my personal capacity, as I >>>> doubt we will have time to get an NCSG position >>>> together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>> >>>> ?Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, >>>>> we can work on some input this week. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le?sam. 12 mai 2018 ??06:52, Rafik Dammak >>>>> >>>> > a ?crit?: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone >>>>> to review the paper. I am likely biased as I >>>>> reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be >>>>> helpful. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le?sam. 12 mai 2018 ??06:33, Stephanie Perrin >>>>> >>>> > a ?crit?: >>>>> >>>>> I think so... >>>>> >>>>> Steph >>>>> >>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> /Sending on behalf of the Council leadership/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the >>>>>>> GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council >>>>>>> leadership team has collaborated with staff >>>>>>> in bringing all discussions and suggestions >>>>>>> to date into one document for your and your >>>>>>> respective communities? consideration. We >>>>>>> welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? >>>>>>> potential incremental improvements for >>>>>>> consideration. In particular, which >>>>>>> potential incremental improvements should be >>>>>>> prioritized, are there any missing, are >>>>>>> there additional implementation steps that >>>>>>> should be considered? After receiving >>>>>>> feedback, we hope to commence the >>>>>>> development of an implementation plan >>>>>>> proposing the when/how/who of implementing >>>>>>> those incremental improvements agreed upon >>>>>>> by the Council. To contribute to this next >>>>>>> step in the improvements process we kindly >>>>>>> request your feedback and/or that of your >>>>>>> community by 8 June so that the Council can >>>>>>> consider next steps during its meeting at >>>>>>> ICANN62. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> */Marika Konings/* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Vice President, Policy Development Support >>>>>>> ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned >>>>>>> Names and Numbers (ICANN) / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our >>>>>>> interactive courses >>>>>>> ?and >>>>>>> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Thu Jun 21 16:10:03 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:10:03 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Dear Ayden, Sorry for late input, definitely brilliant either for the community to chart its own course in professional development as per ICANN volunteerism role. Fully supported +1 Poncelet On 21 June 2018 at 12:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input > (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would > like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it > is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't > thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on PDP > 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working > session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the > progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from > SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect > suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. > > I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal https://docs.google. > com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit in order > to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I also > attached the report for reference. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks Rafik, >> >> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the >> comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they >> are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the >> realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >> >> Best. >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >> >> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is >> possible. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> >> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension >> for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for >> everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO >> council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the >> expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to >> Panama meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and >>> have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 >>> 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy >>> to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get >>> an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>> >>> ?Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on >>> some input this week. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. >>>> I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be >>>> helpful. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin >>> utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> I think so... >>>>> >>>>> Steph >>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>> >>>>> -- Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion >>>>> paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing >>>>> all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>>>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>>>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>>>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>>>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>>>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>>>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>>>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>>>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>>>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>>>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Marika Konings* >>>>> >>>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>>> >>>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>>> >>>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>> . * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 21 16:12:09 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:12:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thank you so much Poncelet, I appreciate your comments! Kind regards, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 21 June 2018 3:10 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Dear Ayden, > Sorry for late input, definitely brilliant either for the community to chart its own course in professional development as per ICANN volunteerism role. Fully supported +1 > Poncelet > > On 21 June 2018 at 12:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on PDP 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. >>> >>> I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I also attached the report for reference. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> Thanks Rafik, >>>> >>>> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>>>> >>>>> Best. >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>>>>>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to Panama meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some input this week. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be helpful. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think so... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sending on behalf of the Council leadership >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > www.ymca.gm > http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm) > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 16:17:47 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:17:47 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, that is why I created the google doc so Policy Committee members can make suggestions. I will try within the weekend to finalize it. Best. Rafik Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 ? 21:56, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input > (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would > like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it > is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't > thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on PDP > 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working > session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the > progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from > SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect > suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. > > I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal > https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit > in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I > also attached the report for reference. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks Rafik, >> >> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the >> comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they >> are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the >> realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >> >> Best. >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >> >> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is >> possible. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> >> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension >> for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for >> everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO >> council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the >> expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to >> Panama meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and >>> have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 >>> 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy >>> to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get >>> an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>> >>> ?Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on >>> some input this week. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. >>>> I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be >>>> helpful. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> I think so... >>>>> >>>>> Steph >>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>> >>>>> -- Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion >>>>> paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing >>>>> all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>>>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>>>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>>>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>>>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>>>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>>>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>>>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>>>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>>>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>>>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Marika Konings* >>>>> >>>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>>> >>>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>>> >>>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>> . * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 16:20:42 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:20:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Ayden, The Google Doc link, is our comments? I am not sure about the idea, sorry. I don't see how it can improve PDPs and how effective it might be. If I get the time I will look over it again perhaps we can re-word it in a way that is acceptable to all. Farzaneh On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thank you so much Poncelet, I appreciate your comments! > > Kind regards, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 21 June 2018 3:10 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > > Dear Ayden, > Sorry for late input, definitely brilliant either for the community to > chart its own course in professional development as per ICANN volunteerism > role. Fully supported +1 > Poncelet > > On 21 June 2018 at 12:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input >> (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would >> like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it >> is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't >> thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on PDP >> 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working >> session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the >> progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from >> SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect >> suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. >> >> I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit >> in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I >> also attached the report for reference. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Thanks Rafik, >>> >>> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the >>> comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they >>> are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the >>> realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is >>> possible. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> >>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension >>> for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for >>> everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO >>> council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the >>> expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to >>> Panama meeting. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and >>>> have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 >>>> 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy >>>> to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get >>>> an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>> >>>> ?Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on >>>> some input this week. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. >>>>> I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be >>>>> helpful. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> I think so... >>>>>> >>>>>> Steph >>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion >>>>>> paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing >>>>>> all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>>>>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>>>>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>>>>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>>>>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>>>>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>>>>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>>>>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>>>>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>>>>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>>>>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Marika Konings* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>>>> >>>>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>>> . * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 21 16:24:21 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:24:21 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: We don't have a comment; what is in the Google Doc is what I had planned to submit in my personal capacity. It can of course be changed if there are other ideas, but there have not been any other ideas or input proposed so far, and the document has been out since March... ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 21 June 2018 3:20 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Ayden, The Google Doc link, is our comments? > > I am not sure about the idea, sorry. I don't see how it can improve PDPs and how effective it might be. > If I get the time I will look over it again perhaps we can re-word it in a way that is acceptable to all. > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thank you so much Poncelet, I appreciate your comments! >> >> Kind regards, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 21 June 2018 3:10 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: >> >>> Dear Ayden, >>> Sorry for late input, definitely brilliant either for the community to chart its own course in professional development as per ICANN volunteerism role. Fully supported +1 >>> Poncelet >>> >>> On 21 June 2018 at 12:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on PDP 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. >>>>> >>>>> I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I also attached the report for reference. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is possible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>>>>>>>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to Panama meeting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some input this week. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be helpful. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think so... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sending on behalf of the Council leadership >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -- >>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>> Coordinator >>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>> The Gambia, West Africa >>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>> Skype: pons_utd >>> www.ymca.gm >>> http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>> www.waigf.org >>> [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm) >>> www.npoc.org >>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 16:27:02 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:27:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I thought you put this up to see if it can get approved by PC. If that was not the intention and we don't have a comment and wording of what you have cannot be changed, then I prefer not to discuss this as an NCSG idea. Farzaneh On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > We don't have a comment; what is in the Google Doc is what I had planned > to submit in my personal capacity. It can of course be changed if there are > other ideas, but there have not been any other ideas or input proposed so > far, and the document has been out since March... > > ?Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 21 June 2018 3:20 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Ayden, The Google Doc link, is our comments? > > I am not sure about the idea, sorry. I don't see how it can improve PDPs > and how effective it might be. > If I get the time I will look over it again perhaps we can re-word it in a > way that is acceptable to all. > > Farzaneh > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Thank you so much Poncelet, I appreciate your comments! >> >> Kind regards, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 21 June 2018 3:10 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: >> >> Dear Ayden, >> Sorry for late input, definitely brilliant either for the community to >> chart its own course in professional development as per ICANN volunteerism >> role. Fully supported +1 >> Poncelet >> >> On 21 June 2018 at 12:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input >>> (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would >>> like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it >>> is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't >>> thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on >>> PDP 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working >>> session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the >>> progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from >>> SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect >>> suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. >>> >>> I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit >>> in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I >>> also attached the report for reference. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Thanks Rafik, >>>> >>>> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the >>>> comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they >>>> are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the >>>> realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>>> >>>> Best. >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension >>>> for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for >>>> everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO >>>> council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the >>>> expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to >>>> Panama meeting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and >>>>> have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 >>>>> 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy >>>>> to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get >>>>> an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>>> >>>>> ?Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on >>>>> some input this week. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the >>>>>> paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes >>>>>> would be helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think so... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion >>>>>>> paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing >>>>>>> all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>>>>>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>>>>>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>>>>>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>>>>>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>>>>>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>>>>>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>>>>>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>>>>>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>>>>>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>>>>>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Marika Konings* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>>>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>>>> . * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 21 16:31:00 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:31:00 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I never sought for this to be considered as an NCSG proposal; it was the PC Chair who suggested that perhaps it would be better to have an NCSG submission. But this is not a formal consultation; from what I understand, ICANN staff are looking for informal input on their staff paper. Anyway, they have been seeking input since January (on the first paper) and since March (on the second one), and we have not prepared anything. I was only following up to say, if we are not submitting anything as the NCSG (which seems likely), just let me know so I can send in this feedback in my individual capacity, as it's on the agenda for this Monday. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 21 June 2018 3:27 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > I thought you put this up to see if it can get approved by PC. If that was not the intention and we don't have a comment and wording of what you have cannot be changed, then I prefer not to discuss this as an NCSG idea. > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> We don't have a comment; what is in the Google Doc is what I had planned to submit in my personal capacity. It can of course be changed if there are other ideas, but there have not been any other ideas or input proposed so far, and the document has been out since March... >> >> ?Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 21 June 2018 3:20 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Ayden, The Google Doc link, is our comments? >>> >>> I am not sure about the idea, sorry. I don't see how it can improve PDPs and how effective it might be. >>> If I get the time I will look over it again perhaps we can re-word it in a way that is acceptable to all. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you so much Poncelet, I appreciate your comments! >>>> >>>> Kind regards, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 21 June 2018 3:10 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Ayden, >>>>> Sorry for late input, definitely brilliant either for the community to chart its own course in professional development as per ICANN volunteerism role. Fully supported +1 >>>>> Poncelet >>>>> >>>>> On 21 June 2018 at 12:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on PDP 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I also attached the report for reference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Rafik, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension is possible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>>>>>>>>>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior to Panama meeting. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on some input this week. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes would be helpful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think so... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sending on behalf of the Council leadership >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marika Konings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>>>> Coordinator >>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>>>> The Gambia, West Africa >>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>>>> Skype: pons_utd >>>>> www.ymca.gm >>>>> http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>>>> www.waigf.org >>>>> [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm) >>>>> www.npoc.org >>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 16:36:51 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:36:51 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, to clarify: - it is not the staff position paper shared in January (that one was put for consultation but kick-off discussion during the council strategical meeting). It is a new report based on input we got from the Sunday session in San Juan, consolidated by staff and GNSo council leadership in April. - the consultation is for SG/C as groups to give input on that new paper. - while it is one topic in Monday GNSO working session, the council leadership will explain how and when to get input on that report. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 ? 22:31, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I never sought for this to be considered as an NCSG proposal; it was the > PC Chair who suggested that perhaps it would be better to have an NCSG > submission. But this is not a formal consultation; from what I understand, > ICANN staff are looking for informal input on their staff paper. Anyway, > they have been seeking input since January (on the first paper) and since > March (on the second one), and we have not prepared anything. I was only > following up to say, if we are not submitting anything as the NCSG (which > seems likely), just let me know so I can send in this feedback in my > individual capacity, as it's on the agenda for this Monday. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 21 June 2018 3:27 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > I thought you put this up to see if it can get approved by PC. If that was > not the intention and we don't have a comment and wording of what you have > cannot be changed, then I prefer not to discuss this as an NCSG idea. > > > Farzaneh > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> We don't have a comment; what is in the Google Doc is what I had planned >> to submit in my personal capacity. It can of course be changed if there are >> other ideas, but there have not been any other ideas or input proposed so >> far, and the document has been out since March... >> >> ?Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 21 June 2018 3:20 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Ayden, The Google Doc link, is our comments? >> >> I am not sure about the idea, sorry. I don't see how it can improve PDPs >> and how effective it might be. >> If I get the time I will look over it again perhaps we can re-word it in >> a way that is acceptable to all. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you so much Poncelet, I appreciate your comments! >>> >>> Kind regards, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 21 June 2018 3:10 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: >>> >>> Dear Ayden, >>> Sorry for late input, definitely brilliant either for the community to >>> chart its own course in professional development as per ICANN volunteerism >>> role. Fully supported +1 >>> Poncelet >>> >>> On 21 June 2018 at 12:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my input >>>> (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I would >>>> like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I think it >>>> is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I haven't >>>> thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on >>>> PDP 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working >>>> session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the >>>> progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from >>>> SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect >>>> suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. >>>> >>>> I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit >>>> in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I >>>> also attached the report for reference. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Thanks Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the >>>>> comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they >>>>> are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the >>>>> realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>>>> >>>>> Best. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension >>>>> is possible. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an >>>>> extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth >>>>> for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO >>>>> council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the >>>>> expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>>>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior >>>>> to Panama meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and >>>>>> have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 >>>>>> 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy >>>>>> to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get >>>>>> an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>>>> >>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on >>>>>> some input this week. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak a >>>>>> ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the >>>>>>> paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes >>>>>>> would be helpful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think so... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion >>>>>>>> paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing >>>>>>>> all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>>>>>>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>>>>>>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>>>>>>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>>>>>>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>>>>>>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>>>>>>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>>>>>>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>>>>>>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>>>>>>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>>>>>>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Marika Konings* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>>>>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>>>>> . * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>> Coordinator >>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>> The Gambia, West Africa >>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>> Skype: pons_utd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>> www.waigf.org >>> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 16:37:55 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:37:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> <4XlFAR9Pkha__R9SqHAHwEuN3qIp5QtGBW-vpcociY6EDnDqatLkN3wJhXL8sc5oK_XObwClot4on_4aNwol5nAY-C_fUniyD1b1QMXV6DA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: correction > Hi, > > to clarify: > - it is not the staff position paper shared in January (that one was NOT put > for consultation but kick-off discussion during the council strategical > meeting). It is a new report based on input we got from the Sunday session > in San Juan, consolidated by staff and GNSo council leadership in April. > - the consultation is for SG/C as groups to give input on that new paper. > - while it is one topic in Monday GNSO working session, the council > leadership will explain how and when to get input on that report. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 ? 22:31, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I never sought for this to be considered as an NCSG proposal; it was the >> PC Chair who suggested that perhaps it would be better to have an NCSG >> submission. But this is not a formal consultation; from what I understand, >> ICANN staff are looking for informal input on their staff paper. Anyway, >> they have been seeking input since January (on the first paper) and since >> March (on the second one), and we have not prepared anything. I was only >> following up to say, if we are not submitting anything as the NCSG (which >> seems likely), just let me know so I can send in this feedback in my >> individual capacity, as it's on the agenda for this Monday. >> >> Thanks, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 21 June 2018 3:27 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> I thought you put this up to see if it can get approved by PC. If that >> was not the intention and we don't have a comment and wording of what you >> have cannot be changed, then I prefer not to discuss this as an NCSG idea. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> We don't have a comment; what is in the Google Doc is what I had planned >>> to submit in my personal capacity. It can of course be changed if there are >>> other ideas, but there have not been any other ideas or input proposed so >>> far, and the document has been out since March... >>> >>> ?Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 21 June 2018 3:20 PM, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> Ayden, The Google Doc link, is our comments? >>> >>> I am not sure about the idea, sorry. I don't see how it can improve PDPs >>> and how effective it might be. >>> If I get the time I will look over it again perhaps we can re-word it in >>> a way that is acceptable to all. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:12 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you so much Poncelet, I appreciate your comments! >>>> >>>> Kind regards, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 21 June 2018 3:10 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Ayden, >>>> Sorry for late input, definitely brilliant either for the community to >>>> chart its own course in professional development as per ICANN volunteerism >>>> role. Fully supported +1 >>>> Poncelet >>>> >>>> On 21 June 2018 at 12:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> We need input then from other members of the PC. I have shared my >>>>> input (on our list some weeks ago) and if there are no objections to it, I >>>>> would like it to be taken forward to the working session this Monday. I >>>>> think it is an important addition. There are likely other ideas that I >>>>> haven't thought of too - if others have ideas please share them. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 19 June 2018 5:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> SG/C leaders will be reached to see if/when the input is provided on >>>>> PDP 3.0 and also inform them that is being on the agenda on GNSO working >>>>> session on Monday. We may also add one session but that depends of the >>>>> progress we will make on other fronts. The expectation is to get input from >>>>> SG/C as groups not individuals at the stage. I think we can collect >>>>> suggestions here and make a consolidated NCSG input. >>>>> >>>>> I created a google doc and uploaded the proposal >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit >>>>> in order to collect and consolidate suggestions for input on PDP 3.9. I >>>>> also attached the report for reference. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 ? 00:20, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Any updates on this? If no extension is forthcoming I'll send in the >>>>>> comments I shared here a fortnight ago in under my own name, just so they >>>>>> are there and can be considered... I am thinking it is not outside the >>>>>> realm of possibilities that we'll discuss PDP 3.0 in Panama? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 12 June 2018 12:49 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is likely (quite high) there will be an extension. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2018 2:45 AM, "Ayden F?rdeline" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Rafik, looking forward to hearing whether or not an extension >>>>>> is possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:35 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the deadline is flexible, I am following-up to get an >>>>>> extension for all groups. Unfortunately, EPDP sucked most of the bandwidth >>>>>> for everyone but we cannot drop that. as the topic is of interest for GNSO >>>>>> council leadership, we count on getting input for the report. the >>>>>> expectation is to get input from SG/C at this stage. >>>>>> so we can work on NCSG comment in these coming days, hopefully prior >>>>>> to Panama meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 ? 05:16, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Rafik, I have identified one gap in the discussion paper, and >>>>>>> have attached a suggested additional incremental improvement to 4.3 >>>>>>> 'Complexity of Subject Matter.' However given the time crunch, I am happy >>>>>>> to submit this in my personal capacity, as I doubt we will have time to get >>>>>>> an NCSG position together (given the deadline was yesterday)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On 5 June 2018 4:57 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the deadline for submitting any input is quite close, we can work on >>>>>>> some input this week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:52, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> yes, it is for feedback now. I encourage everyone to review the >>>>>>>> paper. I am likely biased as I reviewed it several times, so fresh eyes >>>>>>>> would be helpful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 06:33, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think so... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>> On 2018-05-11 17:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Should we respond as the NCSG? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>> On 11 May 2018 11:23 PM, Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion >>>>>>>>> paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing >>>>>>>>> all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your >>>>>>>>> respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on >>>>>>>>> section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In >>>>>>>>> particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, >>>>>>>>> are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that >>>>>>>>> should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the >>>>>>>>> development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of >>>>>>>>> implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To >>>>>>>>> contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request >>>>>>>>> your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council >>>>>>>>> can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> GNSO Council leadership team >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Marika Konings* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>>>>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>>>>>>>> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>>>>>> . * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>>> Coordinator >>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>>> The Gambia, West Africa >>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>>> Skype: pons_utd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>>> www.waigf.org >>>> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>>> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat Jun 23 19:30:15 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 11:30:15 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Panama_high-interest_session_on_Accred?= =?utf-8?q?_=26_Access_to_non-public_Whois_data_=28Tuesday_June_26=2C_2018?= =?utf-8?b?OyAxNzowMCDigJMgMTg6MzAgbG9jYWwgdGltZSk=?= In-Reply-To: <03158497-2FC3-41D3-92F3-AC12297CE4ED@netchoice.org> References: <03158497-2FC3-41D3-92F3-AC12297CE4ED@netchoice.org> Message-ID: as usual, not a moment too soon.? Thoughts and suggestions would be most welcome.? I thought I would point to the IG blog Farzi just did, and point out the different jobs that standards would do.? I think we need to dissect, for clairty, what we mean by accreditation, what we mean by standards, and what aspects of data protection law are factilitated by a standards based approach.? As Farzi's blog points out (although not in the DP or standards perspective) the rush to come up with a system and procedure that perpetuates the status quo is not helpful in discerning or illuminating what is necessary for a data controller/processor to give a third party access. I will see if I can hook up with Palage in the meantime. cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Panama high-interest session on Accred & Access to non-public Whois data (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local time) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 16:02:41 +0000 From: Steve DelBianco To: Goran Marby , John Jeffrey , Alex Deacon , kdrazek at verisign.com , Stephanie Perrin , Rod Rasmussen , Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu , Fabricio Vayra , Michael Palage CC: Cyrus Namazi , Brian Winterfeldt , Selli, Claudia , Manal Ismail Just a note to confirm you as panelists for Tuesday?s session in Panama, regarding accreditation and access to non-Public Whois data.? The panel is described below, and here is the panel lineup: Goran Marby and/or John Jeffrey, ICANN.?? See ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model , and chart comparing with IPC/BC and Palage models. Alex Deacon, BC Keith Drazek, RySG Stephanie Perrin, NCSG Rod Rasmussen, SSAC. See SSAC Advisory here . Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, European Commission & GAC PSWG Fabricio Vayra, IPC. See IPC/BC model for Accredited Access (v1.6) Michael Palage, author of ?Philly Special? model for Differentiated Registrant Data Access It?s a large panel, but we need these representative views to advance a unified model for accreditation & access. ??We will not do opening statements by each panelist, but will instead give you ample time to answer structured questions about designing and implementing a unified model. As your moderator, I?d like to propose the following questions and timing, and I welcome your thoughts on this: Introduction of Panelists ? Brief overview of topics ? /Steve DelBianco/ (figure 10 minutes, since we rarely begin on-time) 1. What are the most important characteristics we need in an Accredited Access model? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) 2. What is your assessment of ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model , and how could that model be improved? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) 3. Talk about your preferred way to implement this model. Should ICANN Org do another Temp Spec, or let GNSO Council develop one via an expedited PDP, or find a way for Org and GNSO to work together? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) 4. Brief conclusory remarks from each panelist, on key concerns or considerations in implementing an Accredited Access model. (10 minutes ? allowing 1 minutes per panelist) Audience questions and answer (20 minutes) *_Session 2: Accreditation and Access to Non-Public WHOIS Data Post-GDPR (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local time)_* ** *Description*: Under the Temporary Specification passed by the ICANN Board implementing the interim GDPR compliance model, there is a placeholder for an accreditation system to allowuniform access to non-public WHOIS data by appropriate users for legitimate purposes.? Under the Temp Spec, contracted parties must provide non-public registration data for legitimate purposes specified in Section 4 of the Temp Spec, unless the request for access is outweighed by the domain name registrant?s fundamental right to privacy. TheArticle 29 Working Party issued a statement -- endorsed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) -- encouraging ICANN to develop an access model. There is now no uniform system for approving legitimate users foraccess to non-public registration data forlegitimate purposes, so contracted parties mustperform ad-hoc individual review of each request for data. Three models have been proposed thus far: The IPC/BC model for Accredited Access (v1.6) The ?Philly Special? model for Differentiated Registrant Data Access ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model It is urgent that ICANN Org, European regulators, and the community come together ona workable credentialed access system for non-public WHOIS data for legitimate purposes.? In this cross-community session, panelists will engage with the community to discuss developing a credentialed access system and next steps for implement via a Temporary Specification or as part of the expedited policy development process conducted by the GNSO. -- Steve DelBianco President NetChoice +1.703.615.6206 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 19:54:46 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 01:54:46 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Panama_high-interest_session_on_Accre?= =?utf-8?q?d_=26_Access_to_non-public_Whois_data_=28Tuesday_June_26?= =?utf-8?b?LCAyMDE4OyAxNzowMCDigJMgMTg6MzAgbG9jYWwgdGltZSk=?= In-Reply-To: References: <03158497-2FC3-41D3-92F3-AC12297CE4ED@netchoice.org> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, I think due to limited time for panellists and to make an impact, it would be better to focus on accreditation model and what should cover from DP stance not just the focus on purpose or users.with that you can set the records right on the matter and can debunk the claims possibly made by other speakers. I cannot speak about standards part but I assume that will happen later and you mentioned that is long-term project? Best, Rafik Le dim. 24 juin 2018 ? 01:30, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > as usual, not a moment too soon. Thoughts and suggestions would be most > welcome. I thought I would point to the IG blog Farzi just did, and point > out the different jobs that standards would do. I think we need to > dissect, for clairty, what we mean by accreditation, what we mean by > standards, and what aspects of data protection law are factilitated by a > standards based approach. As Farzi's blog points out (although not in the > DP or standards perspective) the rush to come up with a system and > procedure that perpetuates the status quo is not helpful in discerning or > illuminating what is necessary for a data controller/processor to give a > third party access. > > I will see if I can hook up with Palage in the meantime. > > cheers Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Panama high-interest session on Accred & Access to non-public > Whois data (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local time) > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 16:02:41 +0000 > From: Steve DelBianco > > To: Goran Marby , John > Jeffrey , Alex Deacon > , > kdrazek at verisign.com , > Stephanie Perrin > , Rod Rasmussen > , Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu > , > Fabricio Vayra , Michael > Palage > CC: Cyrus Namazi , Brian > Winterfeldt , Selli, > Claudia , Manal Ismail > > > Just a note to confirm you as panelists for Tuesday?s session in Panama, > regarding accreditation and access to non-Public Whois data. The panel is > described below, and here is the panel lineup: > > > > Goran Marby and/or John Jeffrey, ICANN. See ICANN Org?s proposed Unified > Access Model > > , and chart > > comparing with IPC/BC and Palage models. > > Alex Deacon, BC > > Keith Drazek, RySG > > Stephanie Perrin, NCSG > > Rod Rasmussen, SSAC. See SSAC Advisory here > . > > Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, European Commission & GAC PSWG > > Fabricio Vayra, IPC. See IPC/BC model for Accredited Access (v1.6) > > > Michael Palage, author of ?Philly Special? model for Differentiated > Registrant Data Access > > > > > It?s a large panel, but we need these representative views to advance a > unified model for accreditation & access. We will not do opening > statements by each panelist, but will instead give you ample time to answer > structured questions about designing and implementing a unified model. > > > > As your moderator, I?d like to propose the following questions and timing, > and I welcome your thoughts on this: > > > > Introduction of Panelists ? Brief overview of topics ? *Steve DelBianco* (figure > 10 minutes, since we rarely begin on-time) > > > > 1. What are the most important characteristics we need in an Accredited > Access model? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) > > > > 2. What is your assessment of ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model > , > and how could that model be improved? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes > per panelist) > > > > 3. Talk about your preferred way to implement this model. Should ICANN > Org do another Temp Spec, or let GNSO Council develop one via an expedited > PDP, or find a way for Org and GNSO to work together? (16 minutes, > allowing 2 minutes per panelist) > > > > 4. Brief conclusory remarks from each panelist, on key concerns or > considerations in implementing an Accredited Access model. (10 minutes ? > allowing 1 minutes per panelist) > > > > Audience questions and answer (20 minutes) > > > > *Session 2: Accreditation and Access to Non-Public WHOIS Data Post-GDPR > (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local time)* > > > > *Description*: Under the Temporary Specification passed by the ICANN > Board implementing the interim GDPR compliance model, there is a > placeholder for an accreditation system to allow uniform access to > non-public WHOIS data by appropriate users for legitimate purposes. Under > the Temp Spec, contracted parties must provide non-public registration > data for legitimate purposes specified in Section 4 of the Temp Spec, > unless the request for access is outweighed by the domain name registrant?s > fundamental right to privacy. The Article 29 Working Party issued a > statement > -- > endorsed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) -- encouraging > ICANN to develop an access model. > > > > There is now no uniform system for approving legitimate users for access > to non-public registration data for legitimate purposes, so contracted > parties must perform ad-hoc individual review of each request for data. Three > models have been proposed thus far: > > The IPC/BC model for Accredited Access (v1.6) > > > The ?Philly Special? model for Differentiated Registrant Data Access > > > ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model > > > > > It is urgent that ICANN Org, European regulators, and the community come > together on a workable credentialed access system for non-public WHOIS > data for legitimate purposes. In this cross-community session, panelists > will engage with the community to discuss developing a credentialed access > system and next steps for implement via a Temporary Specification or as > part of the expedited policy development process conducted by the GNSO. > > > > -- > > Steve DelBianco > > President > > NetChoice > > +1.703.615.6206 > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 19:55:45 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:55:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Panama_high-interest_session_on_Accre?= =?utf-8?q?d_=26_Access_to_non-public_Whois_data_=28Tuesday_June_26?= =?utf-8?b?LCAyMDE4OyAxNzowMCDigJMgMTg6MzAgbG9jYWwgdGltZSk=?= In-Reply-To: References: <03158497-2FC3-41D3-92F3-AC12297CE4ED@netchoice.org> Message-ID: Thanks a lot stephanie Yes I think we should move towards taking acc/standardaization discussion out of this for the moment. Focus on access. Also we should not call those sessions high interest sessions because they are cross community. I know icann tagging is confusing. The difference betwee the two is that high interest session can be ogranized by one group but cc should be organized by various groups. Which wasnt the case this time the louder i shouted the more was ignored but will bring it up again at leaders session. On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:30 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > as usual, not a moment too soon. Thoughts and suggestions would be most > welcome. I thought I would point to the IG blog Farzi just did, and point > out the different jobs that standards would do. I think we need to > dissect, for clairty, what we mean by accreditation, what we mean by > standards, and what aspects of data protection law are factilitated by a > standards based approach. As Farzi's blog points out (although not in the > DP or standards perspective) the rush to come up with a system and > procedure that perpetuates the status quo is not helpful in discerning or > illuminating what is necessary for a data controller/processor to give a > third party access. > > I will see if I can hook up with Palage in the meantime. > > cheers Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Panama high-interest session on Accred & Access to non-public > Whois data (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local time) > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 16:02:41 +0000 > From: Steve DelBianco > > To: Goran Marby , John > Jeffrey , Alex Deacon > , > kdrazek at verisign.com , > Stephanie Perrin > , Rod Rasmussen > , Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu > , > Fabricio Vayra , Michael > Palage > CC: Cyrus Namazi , Brian > Winterfeldt , Selli, > Claudia , Manal Ismail > > > Just a note to confirm you as panelists for Tuesday?s session in Panama, > regarding accreditation and access to non-Public Whois data. The panel is > described below, and here is the panel lineup: > > > > Goran Marby and/or John Jeffrey, ICANN. See ICANN Org?s proposed Unified > Access Model > > , and chart > > comparing with IPC/BC and Palage models. > > Alex Deacon, BC > > Keith Drazek, RySG > > Stephanie Perrin, NCSG > > Rod Rasmussen, SSAC. See SSAC Advisory here > . > > Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, European Commission & GAC PSWG > > Fabricio Vayra, IPC. See IPC/BC model for Accredited Access (v1.6) > > > Michael Palage, author of ?Philly Special? model for Differentiated > Registrant Data Access > > > > > It?s a large panel, but we need these representative views to advance a > unified model for accreditation & access. We will not do opening > statements by each panelist, but will instead give you ample time to answer > structured questions about designing and implementing a unified model. > > > > As your moderator, I?d like to propose the following questions and timing, > and I welcome your thoughts on this: > > > > Introduction of Panelists ? Brief overview of topics ? *Steve DelBianco* (figure > 10 minutes, since we rarely begin on-time) > > > > 1. What are the most important characteristics we need in an Accredited > Access model? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) > > > > 2. What is your assessment of ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model > , > and how could that model be improved? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes > per panelist) > > > > 3. Talk about your preferred way to implement this model. Should ICANN > Org do another Temp Spec, or let GNSO Council develop one via an expedited > PDP, or find a way for Org and GNSO to work together? (16 minutes, > allowing 2 minutes per panelist) > > > > 4. Brief conclusory remarks from each panelist, on key concerns or > considerations in implementing an Accredited Access model. (10 minutes ? > allowing 1 minutes per panelist) > > > > Audience questions and answer (20 minutes) > > > > *Session 2: Accreditation and Access to Non-Public WHOIS Data Post-GDPR > (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local time)* > > > > *Description*: Under the Temporary Specification passed by the ICANN > Board implementing the interim GDPR compliance model, there is a > placeholder for an accreditation system to allow uniform access to > non-public WHOIS data by appropriate users for legitimate purposes. Under > the Temp Spec, contracted parties must provide non-public registration > data for legitimate purposes specified in Section 4 of the Temp Spec, > unless the request for access is outweighed by the domain name registrant?s > fundamental right to privacy. The Article 29 Working Party issued a > statement > -- > endorsed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) -- encouraging > ICANN to develop an access model. > > > > There is now no uniform system for approving legitimate users for access > to non-public registration data for legitimate purposes, so contracted > parties must perform ad-hoc individual review of each request for data. Three > models have been proposed thus far: > > The IPC/BC model for Accredited Access (v1.6) > > > The ?Philly Special? model for Differentiated Registrant Data Access > > > ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model > > > > > It is urgent that ICANN Org, European regulators, and the community come > together on a workable credentialed access system for non-public WHOIS > data for legitimate purposes. In this cross-community session, panelists > will engage with the community to discuss developing a credentialed access > system and next steps for implement via a Temporary Specification or as > part of the expedited policy development process conducted by the GNSO. > > > > -- > > Steve DelBianco > > President > > NetChoice > > +1.703.615.6206 > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat Jun 23 20:06:34 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:06:34 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Panama_high-interest_session_on_Accre?= =?utf-8?q?d_=26_Access_to_non-public_Whois_data_=28Tuesday_June_26=2C_201?= =?utf-8?b?ODsgMTc6MDAg4oCTIDE4OjMwIGxvY2FsIHRpbWUp?= In-Reply-To: References: <03158497-2FC3-41D3-92F3-AC12297CE4ED@netchoice.org> Message-ID: <1b75f381-b8d5-2e97-84ba-95068e7cb679@mail.utoronto.ca> Yes I had the chance to have breakfast with Graeme Bunton this morning. Interesting.? I am glad he is going to run again, many of the registrars are getting just worn out with this bullshit. cheers Steph On 2018-06-23 11:55, farzaneh badii wrote: > Thanks a lot stephanie > > Yes I think we should move towards taking acc/standardaization > ?discussion out of this for the moment. Focus on access. Also we > should not call those sessions high interest sessions because they are > cross community. I know icann tagging is confusing. The difference > betwee the two is that high interest session can be ogranized by one > group but cc should be organized by various groups. Which wasnt the > case this time the louder i shouted the more was ignored but will > bring it up again at leaders session. > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:30 PM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > as usual, not a moment too soon.? Thoughts and suggestions would > be most welcome.? I thought I would point to the IG blog Farzi > just did, and point out the different jobs that standards would > do.? I think we need to dissect, for clairty, what we mean by > accreditation, what we mean by standards, and what aspects of data > protection law are factilitated by a standards based approach.? As > Farzi's blog points out (although not in the DP or standards > perspective) the rush to come up with a system and procedure that > perpetuates the status quo is not helpful in discerning or > illuminating what is necessary for a data controller/processor to > give a third party access. > > I will see if I can hook up with Palage in the meantime. > > cheers Steph > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Panama high-interest session on Accred & Access to > non-public Whois data (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local > time) > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 16:02:41 +0000 > From: Steve DelBianco > > To: Goran Marby > , John Jeffrey > , Alex > Deacon > , kdrazek at verisign.com > > , Stephanie Perrin > > , Rod Rasmussen > , > Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu > > > , Fabricio Vayra > , Michael > Palage > CC: Cyrus Namazi > , Brian Winterfeldt > , Selli, > Claudia , Manal > Ismail > > > > Just a note to confirm you as panelists for Tuesday?s session in > Panama, regarding accreditation and access to non-Public Whois > data.? The panel is described below, and here is the panel lineup: > > Goran Marby and/or John Jeffrey, ICANN.?? See ICANN Org?s proposed > Unified Access Model > > , and chart > > comparing with IPC/BC and Palage models. > > Alex Deacon, BC > > Keith Drazek, RySG > > Stephanie Perrin, NCSG > > Rod Rasmussen, SSAC.?? See SSAC Advisory here > . > > Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, European Commission & GAC PSWG > > Fabricio Vayra, IPC.?? See IPC/BC model for Accredited Access > (v1.6) > > > Michael Palage, author of ?Philly Special? model for > Differentiated Registrant Data Access > > > It?s a large panel, but we need these representative views to > advance a unified model for accreditation & access. ??We will not > do opening statements by each panelist, but will instead give you > ample time to answer structured questions about designing and > implementing a unified model. > > As your moderator, I?d like to propose the following questions and > timing, and I welcome your thoughts on this: > > Introduction of Panelists ? Brief overview of topics ? /Steve > DelBianco/ (figure 10 minutes, since we rarely begin on-time) > > 1. What are the most important characteristics we need in an > Accredited Access model? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) > > 2. What is your assessment of ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access > Model > , > and how could that model be improved? (16 minutes, allowing 2 > minutes per panelist) > > 3. Talk about your preferred way to implement this model. Should > ICANN Org do another Temp Spec, or let GNSO Council develop one > via an expedited PDP, or find a way for Org and GNSO to work > together? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) > > 4. Brief conclusory remarks from each panelist, on key concerns or > considerations in implementing an Accredited Access model. (10 > minutes ? allowing 1 minutes per panelist) > > Audience questions and answer (20 minutes) > > *_Session 2: Accreditation and Access to Non-Public WHOIS Data > Post-GDPR (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local time)_* > > ** > > *Description*: Under the Temporary Specification passed by the > ICANN Board implementing the interim GDPR compliance model, there > is a placeholder for an accreditation system to allowuniform > access to non-public WHOIS data by appropriate users for > legitimate purposes.? Under the Temp Spec, contracted parties must > provide non-public registration data for legitimate purposes > specified in Section 4 of the Temp Spec, unless the request for > access is outweighed by the domain name registrant?s fundamental > right to privacy. TheArticle 29 Working Party issued a statement > -- > endorsed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) -- > encouraging ICANN to develop an access model. > > There is now no uniform system for approving legitimate users > foraccess to non-public registration data forlegitimate purposes, > so contracted parties mustperform ad-hoc individual review of each > request for data. Three models have been proposed thus far: > > The IPC/BC model for Accredited Access (v1.6) > > > The ?Philly Special? model for Differentiated Registrant Data > Access > > > ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model > > > It is urgent that ICANN Org, European regulators, and the > community come together ona workable credentialed access system > for non-public WHOIS data for legitimate purposes.? In this > cross-community session, panelists will engage with the community > to discuss developing a credentialed access system and next steps > for implement via a Temporary Specification or as part of the > expedited policy development process conducted by the GNSO. > > -- > > Steve DelBianco > > President > > NetChoice > > +1.703.615.6206 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat Jun 23 20:09:00 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:09:00 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Panama_high-interest_session_on_Accre?= =?utf-8?q?d_=26_Access_to_non-public_Whois_data_=28Tuesday_June_26=2C_201?= =?utf-8?b?ODsgMTc6MDAg4oCTIDE4OjMwIGxvY2FsIHRpbWUp?= In-Reply-To: References: <03158497-2FC3-41D3-92F3-AC12297CE4ED@netchoice.org> Message-ID: Yes, long term and can build on best practice IF that practice is formulated consistent with DP law.? I suspect Palage is closer to a good input document for that process than the others... am sitting on top floor bar (nice quiet place I must say) but sweltering hot. Plans to retire here are off... cheers steph On 2018-06-23 11:54, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > I think due to limited time for panellists and to make an impact, it > would be better to focus on accreditation model and what should cover > from DP stance not just the focus on purpose or users.with that you > can set the records right on the matter and can debunk the claims > possibly made by other speakers. I cannot speak about standards part > but I assume that will happen later and you mentioned that is > long-term?project? > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?dim. 24 juin 2018 ??01:30, Stephanie Perrin > > a ?crit?: > > as usual, not a moment too soon.? Thoughts and suggestions would > be most welcome.? I thought I would point to the IG blog Farzi > just did, and point out the different jobs that standards would > do.? I think we need to dissect, for clairty, what we mean by > accreditation, what we mean by standards, and what aspects of data > protection law are factilitated by a standards based approach.? As > Farzi's blog points out (although not in the DP or standards > perspective) the rush to come up with a system and procedure that > perpetuates the status quo is not helpful in discerning or > illuminating what is necessary for a data controller/processor to > give a third party access. > > I will see if I can hook up with Palage in the meantime. > > cheers Steph > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Panama high-interest session on Accred & Access to > non-public Whois data (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local > time) > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 16:02:41 +0000 > From: Steve DelBianco > > To: Goran Marby > , John Jeffrey > , Alex > Deacon > , kdrazek at verisign.com > > , Stephanie Perrin > > , Rod Rasmussen > , > Cathrin.BAUER-BULST at ec.europa.eu > > > , Fabricio Vayra > , Michael > Palage > CC: Cyrus Namazi > , Brian Winterfeldt > , Selli, > Claudia , Manal > Ismail > > > > Just a note to confirm you as panelists for Tuesday?s session in > Panama, regarding accreditation and access to non-Public Whois > data.? The panel is described below, and here is the panel lineup: > > Goran Marby and/or John Jeffrey, ICANN.?? See ICANN Org?s proposed > Unified Access Model > > , and chart > > comparing with IPC/BC and Palage models. > > Alex Deacon, BC > > Keith Drazek, RySG > > Stephanie Perrin, NCSG > > Rod Rasmussen, SSAC.?? See SSAC Advisory here > . > > Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, European Commission & GAC PSWG > > Fabricio Vayra, IPC.?? See IPC/BC model for Accredited Access > (v1.6) > > > Michael Palage, author of ?Philly Special? model for > Differentiated Registrant Data Access > > > It?s a large panel, but we need these representative views to > advance a unified model for accreditation & access. ??We will not > do opening statements by each panelist, but will instead give you > ample time to answer structured questions about designing and > implementing a unified model. > > As your moderator, I?d like to propose the following questions and > timing, and I welcome your thoughts on this: > > Introduction of Panelists ? Brief overview of topics ? /Steve > DelBianco/ (figure 10 minutes, since we rarely begin on-time) > > 1. What are the most important characteristics we need in an > Accredited Access model? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) > > 2. What is your assessment of ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access > Model > , > and how could that model be improved? (16 minutes, allowing 2 > minutes per panelist) > > 3. Talk about your preferred way to implement this model.? Should > ICANN Org do another Temp Spec, or let GNSO Council develop one > via an expedited PDP, or find a way for Org and GNSO to work > together? (16 minutes, allowing 2 minutes per panelist) > > 4. Brief conclusory remarks from each panelist, on key concerns or > considerations in implementing an Accredited Access model. (10 > minutes ? allowing 1 minutes per panelist) > > Audience questions and answer (20 minutes) > > *_Session 2: Accreditation and Access to Non-Public WHOIS Data > Post-GDPR (Tuesday June 26, 2018; 17:00 ? 18:30 local time)_* > > ** > > *Description*: Under the Temporary Specification passed by the > ICANN Board implementing the interim GDPR compliance model, there > is a placeholder for an accreditation system to allowuniform > access to non-public WHOIS data by appropriate users for > legitimate purposes.? Under the Temp Spec, contracted parties must > provide non-public registration data for legitimate purposes > specified in Section 4 of the Temp Spec, unless the request for > access is outweighed by the domain name registrant?s fundamental > right to privacy. TheArticle 29 Working Party issued a statement > -- > endorsed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) -- > encouraging ICANN to develop an access model. > > There is now no uniform system for approving legitimate users > foraccess to non-public registration data forlegitimate purposes, > so contracted parties mustperform ad-hoc individual review of each > request for data. Three models have been proposed thus far: > > The IPC/BC model for Accredited Access (v1.6) > > > The ?Philly Special? model for Differentiated Registrant Data > Access > > > ICANN Org?s proposed Unified Access Model > > > It is urgent that ICANN Org, European regulators, and the > community come together ona workable credentialed access system > for non-public WHOIS data for legitimate purposes.? In this > cross-community session, panelists will engage with the community > to discuss developing a credentialed access system and next steps > for implement via a Temporary Specification or as part of the > expedited policy development process conducted by the GNSO. > > -- > > Steve DelBianco > > President > > NetChoice > > +1.703.615.6206 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 00:18:32 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 17:18:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Notes for GNSO appointed Board meeting tomorrow Message-ID: Hi everyone, Tomorrow we will have a meeting with Becky, Matt Shears (I made a mistake of thinking when we say GNSO members board they actually know Sarah and Avri should be invited too, they might be able to make it) Anyhow a conversation with Matt and Becky will be useful: Here are the core messages we need to send to the board tomorrow I also suggest first you start the conversation about GDPR/Accreditation model and talk about capacity building last. For Capacity building we just want to say we are doing various things to empower our members to get involved with policy, should not take long. Rafik will be chairing the meeting. These are the messages: - There is no urgency for the matter of accreditation. - why is ICANN org getting involved with this, is it in consultation with the Board? If so please tell them to stop getting involved, the issue of access to WHOIS data is within the picket fence and is a policy issue. What they are doing is not justified. - We are working on Access, and we are planning to start a process within the community. - We are concerned with where ICANN org is going with this access model, and we are concerned that the Board just approves it. - We denounce the IPC/BC accreditation model, we do not believe accreditation/access should be happening anywhere outside of ICANN legitimate processes even if they have carried out the process neutrally it is still led by one interest group. We also mention the BC letter yesterday and explain that this model has not been developed by a cross section of the ICANN community, at least from our part there was never formal participation we repeatedly said we won't get engaged and if a couple of our members attended some of the meetings was just to prevent damage, it was not formal NCSG participation. This is the agenda. Probably have to first talk about GDPR privacy stuff then NCSG engagement with policy. *CSG and GNSO Board Members Meeting:* - NCSG updates on engagement with policy (NCSG capacity building course and other outreach efforts) - GDPR and accreditation model - The future of Temp Spec and its effect on the privacy of domain name registrants Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 25 20:43:31 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:43:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GAC on EPDP In-Reply-To: <26c1c2e9-1634-a9aa-733c-d05f59693fd3@julf.com> References: <26c1c2e9-1634-a9aa-733c-d05f59693fd3@julf.com> Message-ID: FYI - Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 25 June 2018 6:58 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > ?? > > Some quick heads-up notes from the GAC discussion on the EPDP. > > The GAC discussion presented issues to be discussed with the GNSO and > > the board: > > - Membership - GAC wants "parity with GNSO stakeholder groups" > - They want to know the current thinking on scope, expected > > ?? timeline in determining scope, and incorporating GAC input on scope > > - Respective roles of board and GNSO in defining scope > - Who is in charge of overall process? > > ??? Julf > > > council mailing list > > council at gnso.icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 20:52:27 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 02:52:27 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] GAC on EPDP In-Reply-To: <9B1438E7-31C3-43C7-98F9-A7818E9BED99@icann.org> References: <26c1c2e9-1634-a9aa-733c-d05f59693fd3@julf.com> <9B1438E7-31C3-43C7-98F9-A7818E9BED99@icann.org> Message-ID: more details about what GAC discussed, and unfortunately not surprising. Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marika Konings Date: mar. 26 juin 2018 ? 02:48 Subject: Re: [council] GAC on EPDP To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight , Johan Helsingius < julf at julf.com>, council at gnso.icann.org You may also be interested in the slides from that meeting: https://gac.icann.org/presentations/public/icann62-agenda-item3-gdpr-overview-slides.pdf. Best regards, Marika ?On 6/25/18, 12:20, "council on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight" < council-bounces at gnso.icann.org on behalf of michele at blacknight.com> wrote: Thanks Julf Helpful -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=VNO8hMjHZIcnBMtMTZo_gaYQ22ICjSjnto6WYjG5XLI&s=oy8SpKCWUWLarRfWHjjz4V-uF0b8KVlbazd1rREc9q0&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=VNO8hMjHZIcnBMtMTZo_gaYQ22ICjSjnto6WYjG5XLI&s=MxX6lBLxtNVCjbRLFhG8AaNyk1FXKQDJ-4HPl3yces0&e= Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=VNO8hMjHZIcnBMtMTZo_gaYQ22ICjSjnto6WYjG5XLI&s=CShy9r0UtqwD-D6-bM13RvsuRBwFqNJ_xIQXNLD2lBM&e= Some thoughts: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=VNO8hMjHZIcnBMtMTZo_gaYQ22ICjSjnto6WYjG5XLI&s=wgc3zmR0VBxT_A3KVr9GMivL3sCeafKOrt4--VrdxCo&e= ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 25/06/2018, 11:59, "council on behalf of Johan Helsingius" < council-bounces at gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf at julf.com> wrote: Some quick heads-up notes from the GAC discussion on the EPDP. The GAC discussion presented issues to be discussed with the GNSO and the board: - Membership - GAC wants "parity with GNSO stakeholder groups" - They want to know the current thinking on scope, expected timeline in determining scope, and incorporating GAC input on scope - Respective roles of board and GNSO in defining scope - Who is in charge of overall process? Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 16:55:16 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 22:55:16 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SSAC2018-17: SSAC Input to the Chartering of GNSO ePDP on Temporary Specification of gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: References: <66655CBF-79E2-4FD8-8FB2-DEBFAEF239C8@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi, SSAC is being quite vocal on access model and now giving input on EPDP. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- Dear Council colleagues, Posting to the Council list the advice below and attached just received from the SSAC in relation to the EPDP. Best wishes, Heather ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Heather Forrest, On behalf of the SSAC please find, "SSAC2018-17: SSAC Input to the Chartering of GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process on Temporary Specification of gTLD Registration Data? attached. This correspondence will also be published shortly on the SSAC?s website. Sincerely, Andrew McConachie ICANN Policy Support for the SSAC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SSAC2018-17-en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 101437 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jun 26 19:42:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Epdp-dt] General Counsel statement for EPDP Initiation Request (Section E) In-Reply-To: <2ED77FB8-D455-425A-BA10-F44E42C27CFE@icann.org> References: <2ED77FB8-D455-425A-BA10-F44E42C27CFE@icann.org> Message-ID: FYI. Nothing too contentious here from what I see. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 26 June 2018 6:36 PM, Marika Konings wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached for your information, the General Counsel statement for inclusion in the EPDP Initiation Request. Note this is required content for section E of the EPDP Initiation Request. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > Marika Konings > > Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: marika.konings at icann.org > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: General Counsel Statement - Expedited Policy Development Process.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20482 bytes Desc: not available URL: From raquino at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 18:13:25 2018 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:13:25 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New PC NCSG NCUC rep Message-ID: [observer] Dear Rafik The NCUC EC has selected the replacement for Nick Shorey on the PC NCSG, Claudio Lucena, here copied. Please add him to PC NCSG list. Thank you Renata From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 20:27:28 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 02:27:28 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New PC NCSG NCUC rep In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Renata and congratulations to Claudio for the appointment @Maryam please add Claudio to NCSG PC list and update wiki page for leadership Rafik Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 00:14, Renata Aquino Ribeiro a ?crit : > [observer] > > Dear Rafik > > The NCUC EC has selected the replacement for Nick Shorey on the PC > NCSG, Claudio Lucena, here copied. > Please add him to PC NCSG list. > > Thank you > > Renata > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From claudiokilla at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 21:16:14 2018 From: claudiokilla at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A1udio_Lucena?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:16:14 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New PC NCSG NCUC rep In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8B5AFDD7-3E46-4E94-BEE1-72F30D21E771@gmail.com> Thanks everyone, and I hope to start engaging and contributing as soon as possible. Cl?udio Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Jun 2018, at 12:27, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Thanks Renata and congratulations to Claudio for the appointment > @Maryam please add Claudio to NCSG PC list and update wiki page for leadership > > Rafik > >> Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 00:14, Renata Aquino Ribeiro a ?crit : >> [observer] >> >> Dear Rafik >> >> The NCUC EC has selected the replacement for Nick Shorey on the PC >> NCSG, Claudio Lucena, here copied. >> Please add him to PC NCSG list. >> >> Thank you >> >> Renata -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Thu Jun 28 00:26:47 2018 From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 21:26:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] Re: New PC NCSG NCUC rep In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <07277765-E4BD-46E4-9D99-C3BFB21C2A4F@icann.org> Hi Rafik, Claudio has been added to the mailing list and wiki page updated. ? Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation got Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: ?+44 7846 471777? On 27 Jun 2018, at 12:28, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Thanks Renata and congratulations to Claudio for the appointment @Maryam please add Claudio to NCSG PC list and update wiki page for leadership Rafik Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 00:14, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > a ?crit : [observer] Dear Rafik The NCUC EC has selected the replacement for Nick Shorey on the PC NCSG, Claudio Lucena, here copied. Please add him to PC NCSG list. Thank you Renata -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 00:37:33 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:37:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO Chair election timeline and incoming councilors In-Reply-To: <5F8683BD-0B87-4476-BD22-2B0AE1B924C2@icann.org> References: <5F8683BD-0B87-4476-BD22-2B0AE1B924C2@icann.org> Message-ID: Wow, not long until our next election... -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 27 June 2018 10:54 PM, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: > Dear all, > > Please see attached the timeline for the GNSO Chair nomination open date and election. > > Please remember that new councilors are eligible for nomination as Council chair so the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies? elections should be over by the date of nominations. New councilors are to be announced on the 25th August 2018. > > Kind regards, > > Nathalie > > Nathalie Peregrine > > Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: [nathalie.peregrine at icann.org ](nathalie.peregrine at icann.org%20) > > Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EHtoX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2018 GNSO Chair Election Timeline.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 14147 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 00:41:02 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:41:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New PC NCSG NCUC rep In-Reply-To: <8B5AFDD7-3E46-4E94-BEE1-72F30D21E771@gmail.com> References: <8B5AFDD7-3E46-4E94-BEE1-72F30D21E771@gmail.com> Message-ID: Welcome Claudio, great to have you joining us! We might have our next Policy Committee call as early as next week... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 27 June 2018 8:16 PM, Cl?udio Lucena wrote: > Thanks everyone, and I hope to start engaging and contributing as soon as possible. > Cl?udio > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 27 Jun 2018, at 12:27, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Thanks Renata and congratulations to Claudio for the appointment >> @Maryam please add Claudio to NCSG PC list and update wiki page for leadership >> >> Rafik >> >> Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 00:14, Renata Aquino Ribeiro a ?crit : >> >>> [observer] >>> >>> Dear Rafik >>> >>> The NCUC EC has selected the replacement for Nick Shorey on the PC >>> NCSG, Claudio Lucena, here copied. >>> Please add him to PC NCSG list. >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Renata -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 02:07:10 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 19:07:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I forgot to say we need money for the GDPR training to be delivered by an external partner... but here's the edits I have suggested to the EPDP doc so far. -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 June 2018 12:34 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: > > 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. > > Please revise this text from: > > In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: > > To: > > All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: > > 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. > > Please revise the text from: > > the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. > > To: > > the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. > > 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. > > Suggested text: > > The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. > > Kind regards, > Ayden F?rdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 03:12:31 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My personal opinion so far after seeing the comments on this suggested course is that the course might be of use to some of our own appointed members however, I honestly don't believe with a three hour course you can change the long standing values of people and fix their biases. But by having two legal counsels and getting legal opinion you can actually make stronger arguments and better and informed compromises. That's my opinion about this but I think in the end council will decide. On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:07 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I forgot to say we need money for the GDPR training to be delivered by an > external partner... but here's the edits I have suggested to the EPDP doc > so far. > > -Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 28 June 2018 12:34 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working > Methods please: > > *1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* > > Please revise this text from: > > *In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups > such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, > including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration > to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support > to:* > > To: > > *All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said > recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the > ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, > including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived > mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In > addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to:* > > *2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault.* > > Please revise the text from: > > *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to > facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs.* > > To: > > *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to > facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the > principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the > GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in > conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. > Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve > information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in > California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters.* > > *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial > report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's > official languages.* > > Suggested text: > > *The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official > languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal > level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), > this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the > final report, this must be a translation of the entire report.* > > Kind regards, > Ayden F?rdeline > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 03:31:19 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:31:19 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will need back up here from Councillors. This is important. We need transcription. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org > Cc: > > Ayden > > I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere > > I agree with most of your other points. > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > > http://blacknight.blog/ > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline > Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline > Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 > To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" > Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > Hi all, > > I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: > > 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. > > Please revise this text from: > > In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: > > To: > > All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: > > 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. > > Please revise the text from: > > the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. > > To: > > the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. > > 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. > > Suggested text: > > The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 03:37:51 2018 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:37:51 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why are the costs high? Are we not using AI? Which languages are we transcribing to? Perhaps Mr. Neylon could tell us more about the disproportionate costs? On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I will need back up here from Councillors. > > This is important. We need transcription. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org < > epdp-dt at icann.org> > Cc: > > Ayden > > > > I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with > that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed > elsewhere > > > > I agree with most of your other points. > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > > > > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > > http://blacknight.blog/ > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > > *From: *Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline < > icann at ferdeline.com> > *Reply-To: *Ayden F?rdeline > *Date: *Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 > *To: *"epdp-dt at icann.org" > *Subject: *[Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working > Methods please: > > > > *1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* > > > > Please revise this text from: > > > > *In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups > such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, > including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration > to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support > to:* > > > > To: > > > > *All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said > recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the > ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, > including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived > mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In > addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to:* > > > > *2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault.* > > > > Please revise the text from: > > > > *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to > facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs.* > > > > To: > > > > *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to > facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the > principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the > GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in > conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. > Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve > information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in > California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters.* > > > > *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial > report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's > official languages.* > > > > Suggested text: > > > > *The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official > languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal > level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), > this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the > final report, this must be a translation of the entire report.* > > > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 03:41:29 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 19:41:29 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree that transcript in other languages would be good in almost every mesure posible, specially if we have AI and bulk prices on it. At least is worth asking staff how that impact this one time on Budget. Cheers, Mart?n On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:37 dorothy g wrote: > Why are the costs high? Are we not using AI? Which languages are we > transcribing to? Perhaps Mr. Neylon could tell us more about the > disproportionate costs? > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> I will need back up here from Councillors. >> >> This is important. We need transcription. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org < >> epdp-dt at icann.org> >> Cc: >> >> Ayden >> >> >> >> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved >> with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better >> directed elsewhere >> >> >> >> I agree with most of your other points. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Michele >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Mr Michele Neylon >> >> Blacknight Solutions >> >> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >> >> https://www.blacknight.com/ >> >> http://blacknight.blog/ >> >> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >> >> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >> >> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >> >> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >> Park,Sleaty >> >> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Reply-To: *Ayden F?rdeline >> *Date: *Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >> *To: *"epdp-dt at icann.org" >> *Subject: *[Epdp-dt] Working Methods >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working >> Methods please: >> >> >> >> *1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* >> >> >> >> Please revise this text from: >> >> >> >> *In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups >> such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, >> including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration >> to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support >> to:* >> >> >> >> To: >> >> >> >> *All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said >> recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the >> ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, >> including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived >> mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In >> addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to:* >> >> >> >> *2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault.* >> >> >> >> Please revise the text from: >> >> >> >> *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility >> to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs.* >> >> >> >> To: >> >> >> >> *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility >> to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with >> the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to >> the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be >> used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival >> purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they >> preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards >> in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters.* >> >> >> >> *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial >> report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's >> official languages.* >> >> >> >> Suggested text: >> >> >> >> *The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's >> official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with >> an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial >> report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, >> and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report.* >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 03:45:53 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 19:45:53 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? Cheers! Mart?n On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I will need back up here from Councillors. > > This is important. We need transcription. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org < > epdp-dt at icann.org> > Cc: > > Ayden > > > > I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with > that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed > elsewhere > > > > I agree with most of your other points. > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > > > > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > > http://blacknight.blog/ > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > > *From: *Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline < > icann at ferdeline.com> > *Reply-To: *Ayden F?rdeline > *Date: *Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 > *To: *"epdp-dt at icann.org" > *Subject: *[Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working > Methods please: > > > > *1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* > > > > Please revise this text from: > > > > *In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups > such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, > including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration > to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support > to:* > > > > To: > > > > *All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said > recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the > ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, > including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived > mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In > addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to:* > > > > *2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault.* > > > > Please revise the text from: > > > > *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to > facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs.* > > > > To: > > > > *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to > facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the > principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the > GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in > conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. > Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve > information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in > California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters.* > > > > *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial > report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's > official languages.* > > > > Suggested text: > > > > *The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official > languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal > level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), > this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the > final report, this must be a translation of the entire report.* > > > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 03:45:50 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:45:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: are we talking about transcription in languages other than English? transcription of formal meetings in English makes sense, it has been helpful. I don't think it makes sense to have transcription in other languages. but I am not sure that is being debated. Farzaneh On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:41 PM Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that transcript in other languages would be good in almost every > mesure posible, specially if we have AI and bulk prices on it. At least is > worth asking staff how that impact this one time on Budget. > > Cheers, > Mart?n > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:37 dorothy g wrote: > >> Why are the costs high? Are we not using AI? Which languages are we >> transcribing to? Perhaps Mr. Neylon could tell us more about the >> disproportionate costs? >> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>> >>> This is important. We need transcription. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org < >>> epdp-dt at icann.org> >>> Cc: >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> >>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved >>> with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better >>> directed elsewhere >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree with most of your other points. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Michele >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Mr Michele Neylon >>> >>> Blacknight Solutions >>> >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>> >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>> >>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>> >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>> >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>> >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>> >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>> Park,Sleaty >>> >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden >>> F?rdeline >>> *Reply-To: *Ayden F?rdeline >>> *Date: *Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>> *To: *"epdp-dt at icann.org" >>> *Subject: *[Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working >>> Methods please: >>> >>> >>> >>> *1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* >>> >>> >>> >>> Please revise this text from: >>> >>> >>> >>> *In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working >>> Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference >>> calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and >>> duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate >>> support to:* >>> >>> >>> >>> To: >>> >>> >>> >>> *All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said >>> recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the >>> ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, >>> including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived >>> mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In >>> addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to:* >>> >>> >>> >>> *2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault.* >>> >>> >>> >>> Please revise the text from: >>> >>> >>> >>> *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility >>> to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs.* >>> >>> >>> >>> To: >>> >>> >>> >>> *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility >>> to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with >>> the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to >>> the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be >>> used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival >>> purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they >>> preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards >>> in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters.* >>> >>> >>> >>> *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial >>> report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's >>> official languages.* >>> >>> >>> >>> Suggested text: >>> >>> >>> >>> *The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's >>> official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with >>> an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial >>> report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, >>> and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report.* >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 03:53:20 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:53:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am asking only for transcription into English, not translation. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, farzaneh badii wrote: > are we talking about transcription in languages other than English? > > transcription of formal meetings in English makes sense, it has been helpful. I don't think it makes sense to have transcription in other languages. but I am not sure that is being debated. > > Farzaneh > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:41 PM Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > >> I agree that transcript in other languages would be good in almost every mesure posible, specially if we have AI and bulk prices on it. At least is worth asking staff how that impact this one time on Budget. >> >> Cheers, >> Mart?n >> >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:37 dorothy g wrote: >> >>> Why are the costs high? Are we not using AI? Which languages are we transcribing to? Perhaps Mr. Neylon could tell us more about the disproportionate costs? >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>> >>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org < epdp-dt at icann.org> >>>>> Cc: >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>> >>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Michele >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>> >>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>> >>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>> >>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>> >>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>> >>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>> >>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>> >>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>> >>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>> >>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>> >>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>> >>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>> >>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>> >>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>> >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>> >>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>> >>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>> >>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>> >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>> >>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>> >>>>> Suggested text: >>>>> >>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 03:54:20 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:54:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please send back up to the Council list Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd Let?s save money elsewhere Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? > > Cheers! > Mart?n > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I will need back up here from Councillors. >> >> This is important. We need transcription. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org >>> Cc: >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>> >>> I agree with most of your other points. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Michele >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Mr Michele Neylon >>> >>> Blacknight Solutions >>> >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>> >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>> >>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>> >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>> >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>> >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>> >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>> >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>> >>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>> >>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>> >>> Please revise this text from: >>> >>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>> >>> To: >>> >>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>> >>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>> >>> Please revise the text from: >>> >>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>> >>> To: >>> >>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>> >>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>> >>> Suggested text: >>> >>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 05:57:20 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 22:57:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Message-ID: This has to be adopted soon. Preferably by next week and the process get started. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:44 AM Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Hello Rafik, > > Am fine with the proposed procedures, its good to go for me. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 17 June 2018 at 02:46, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> this is a reminder to review the proposed procedures for PIR rep >> appointment, >> Thanks. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 10:14, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks Ayden for the draft, I made some comments there and tweaks. we >>> can finalize it this week if all PC members chime in and review asap. >>> with regard to the process, PC can work on drafting and document it then >>> the documentation will be subject to NCSG EC review, we don't need to have >>> wide consultation on this as by the charter. >>> yes, I can coordinate the process. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ps after this we will come back to the discussion about PC procedures , >>> that was in pause for months now. >>> >>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 05:30, Ars?ne Tungali a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> The procedures look great! These are to be followed thoroughly if there >>>> is enough time, i guess. I don?t know how long we have to submit the names >>>> to the PIR Board. >>>> >>>> And agree with the PC Chair to coordinate this process, if available. >>>> >>>> While waiting to know the timeline, are we soon sharing this document >>>> to the membership to receive inputs from them? >>>> >>>> ----------------- >>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>> +243 993810967 >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>> >>>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, >>>> as PC Chair. >>>> >>>> - Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >>>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ayden, >>>> The draft seems reasonable and efficient. >>>> >>>> Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is >>>> applying. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mart?n >>>> >>>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of >>>> candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please >>>> feel free to suggest revisions: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> ?Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the note. >>>> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and >>>> adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to >>>> evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by >>>> when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set >>>> the timeline for this appointment. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii >>>> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to >>>>> the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will >>>>> not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing >>>>> applications since I will apply for the position. >>>>> >>>>> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I >>>>> suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >>>>> >>>>> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the >>>>> slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate >>>>> the representative. >>>>> >>>>> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that >>>>> since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide >>>>> the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >>>>> >>>>> 4. PIR Representative: >>>>> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the >>>>> past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, >>>>> NCUC-appointees, PC members). >>>>> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who >>>>> understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >>>>> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or >>>>> NCSG mailing lists. >>>>> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the >>>>> Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in >>>>> Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >>>>> >>>>> C.Review and selection of candidates >>>>> >>>>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >>>>> >>>>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one >>>>> candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not >>>>> selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair >>>>> informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or >>>>> where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant >>>>> how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >>>>> >>>>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall >>>>> be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? >>>>> applications. >>>>> >>>>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held >>>>> confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >>>>> >>>>> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and >>>>> the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is >>>>> challenged. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Thu Jun 28 06:31:30 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:31:30 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6B1C5101-4A76-4C32-91E6-F12BFA00BEC9@davecake.net> I agree that transcription is essential for council meetings and other important meetings. David > On 28 Jun 2018, at 8:54 am, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Please send back up to the Council list > > Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd > > Let?s save money elsewhere > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent > wrote: >> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >> >> Cheers! >> Mart?n >> >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >> I will need back up here from Councillors. >> >> This is important. We need transcription. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight> >>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>> To: Ayden F?rdeline >,epdp-dt at icann.org > >>> Cc: >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> >>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree with most of your other points. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Michele >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Mr Michele Neylon >>> >>> Blacknight Solutions >>> >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>> >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>> >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>> >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>> ------------------------------- >>> >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>> >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Epdp-dt > on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline > >>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline > >>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org " > >>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please revise this text from: >>> >>> >>> >>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>> >>> >>> >>> To: >>> >>> >>> >>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please revise the text from: >>> >>> >>> >>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>> >>> >>> >>> To: >>> >>> >>> >>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>> >>> >>> >>> Suggested text: >>> >>> >>> >>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 08:02:28 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 07:02:28 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5F144C79-6AB9-4F44-A56E-417261C0835B@gmail.com> No one has ever answered my question (from June 11) on whether we are planning to seek membership input before we adopt these suggested procedures ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:57 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > This has to be adopted soon. Preferably by next week and the process get started. > >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:44 AM Poncelet Ileleji wrote: >> Hello Rafik, >> >> Am fine with the proposed procedures, its good to go for me. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >>> On 17 June 2018 at 02:46, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is a reminder to review the proposed procedures for PIR rep appointment, >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 10:14, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks Ayden for the draft, I made some comments there and tweaks. we can finalize it this week if all PC members chime in and review asap. >>>> with regard to the process, PC can work on drafting and document it then the documentation will be subject to NCSG EC review, we don't need to have wide consultation on this as by the charter. >>>> yes, I can coordinate the process. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ps after this we will come back to the discussion about PC procedures , that was in pause for months now. >>>> >>>>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 05:30, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : >>>>> The procedures look great! These are to be followed thoroughly if there is enough time, i guess. I don?t know how long we have to submit the names to the PIR Board. >>>>> >>>>> And agree with the PC Chair to coordinate this process, if available. >>>>> >>>>> While waiting to know the timeline, are we soon sharing this document to the membership to receive inputs from them? >>>>> >>>>> ----------------- >>>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>>> +243 993810967 >>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, as PC Chair. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden, >>>>>>> The draft seems reasonable and efficient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is applying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Mart?n >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please feel free to suggest revisions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the note. >>>>>>>>> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak and adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set the timeline for this appointment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing applications since I will apply for the position. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate the representative. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note that since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to decide the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. PIR Representative: >>>>>>>>>> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, NCUC-appointees, PC members). >>>>>>>>>> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >>>>>>>>>> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or NCSG mailing lists. >>>>>>>>>> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> C.Review and selection of candidates >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? applications. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is challenged. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> www.ymca.gm >> http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com >> www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 08:29:25 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 07:29:25 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a practice we have been encouraging here. I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially when someone missed the call or need to cross check something or simply for archives. Sometimes transcription is better than listening to the recording for bandwidth reasons as well. Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this would cost. Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Please send back up to the Council list > > Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd > > Let?s save money elsewhere > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >> >> Cheers! >> Mart?n >> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>> >>> This is important. We need transcription. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>> Cc: >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Michele >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>> >>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>> >>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>> >>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>> >>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>> >>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>> >>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>> >>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>> >>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>> >>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please revise this text from: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please revise the text from: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Suggested text: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 13:28:37 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:28:37 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: <5F144C79-6AB9-4F44-A56E-417261C0835B@gmail.com> References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> <5F144C79-6AB9-4F44-A56E-417261C0835B@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, I responded to you in the same day here https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2018-June/001869.html we can add a consultation step but that is not mandated by the charter. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 14:02, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > No one has ever answered my question (from June 11) on whether we are > planning to seek membership input before we adopt these suggested procedures > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:57 AM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > This has to be adopted soon. Preferably by next week and the process get > started. > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:44 AM Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > >> Hello Rafik, >> >> Am fine with the proposed procedures, its good to go for me. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 17 June 2018 at 02:46, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is a reminder to review the proposed procedures for PIR rep >>> appointment, >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 10:14, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks Ayden for the draft, I made some comments there and tweaks. we >>>> can finalize it this week if all PC members chime in and review asap. >>>> with regard to the process, PC can work on drafting and document it >>>> then the documentation will be subject to NCSG EC review, we don't need to >>>> have wide consultation on this as by the charter. >>>> yes, I can coordinate the process. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ps after this we will come back to the discussion about PC procedures , >>>> that was in pause for months now. >>>> >>>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 05:30, Ars?ne Tungali >>>> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> The procedures look great! These are to be followed thoroughly if >>>>> there is enough time, i guess. I don?t know how long we have to submit the >>>>> names to the PIR Board. >>>>> >>>>> And agree with the PC Chair to coordinate this process, if available. >>>>> >>>>> While waiting to know the timeline, are we soon sharing this document >>>>> to the membership to receive inputs from them? >>>>> >>>>> ----------------- >>>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>>> +243 993810967 >>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, >>>>> as PC Chair. >>>>> >>>>> - Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >>>>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ayden, >>>>> The draft seems reasonable and efficient. >>>>> >>>>> Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is >>>>> applying. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mart?n >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of >>>>> candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please >>>>> feel free to suggest revisions: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> ?Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the note. >>>>> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak >>>>> and adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to >>>>> evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by >>>>> when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set >>>>> the timeline for this appointment. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii >>>>> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to >>>>>> the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will >>>>>> not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing >>>>>> applications since I will apply for the position. >>>>>> >>>>>> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I >>>>>> suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the >>>>>> slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate >>>>>> the representative. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note >>>>>> that since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to >>>>>> decide the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. PIR Representative: >>>>>> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the >>>>>> past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, >>>>>> NCUC-appointees, PC members). >>>>>> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who >>>>>> understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >>>>>> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or >>>>>> NCSG mailing lists. >>>>>> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the >>>>>> Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in >>>>>> Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >>>>>> >>>>>> C.Review and selection of candidates >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one >>>>>> candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not >>>>>> selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair >>>>>> informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or >>>>>> where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant >>>>>> how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall >>>>>> be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? >>>>>> applications. >>>>>> >>>>>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held >>>>>> confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >>>>>> >>>>>> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and >>>>>> the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is >>>>>> challenged. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 13:29:16 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:29:16 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: <9B5A069C-82E7-4383-AA5F-2FCB448E4996@gmail.com> Message-ID: thanks, Farzaneh, we can finalize the text asap. Rafik Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 11:57, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > This has to be adopted soon. Preferably by next week and the process get > started. > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:44 AM Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > >> Hello Rafik, >> >> Am fine with the proposed procedures, its good to go for me. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 17 June 2018 at 02:46, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is a reminder to review the proposed procedures for PIR rep >>> appointment, >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 10:14, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks Ayden for the draft, I made some comments there and tweaks. we >>>> can finalize it this week if all PC members chime in and review asap. >>>> with regard to the process, PC can work on drafting and document it >>>> then the documentation will be subject to NCSG EC review, we don't need to >>>> have wide consultation on this as by the charter. >>>> yes, I can coordinate the process. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ps after this we will come back to the discussion about PC procedures , >>>> that was in pause for months now. >>>> >>>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 05:30, Ars?ne Tungali >>>> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> The procedures look great! These are to be followed thoroughly if >>>>> there is enough time, i guess. I don?t know how long we have to submit the >>>>> names to the PIR Board. >>>>> >>>>> And agree with the PC Chair to coordinate this process, if available. >>>>> >>>>> While waiting to know the timeline, are we soon sharing this document >>>>> to the membership to receive inputs from them? >>>>> >>>>> ----------------- >>>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>>> +243 993810967 >>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would suggest Rafik, if he is willing and not going to run himself, >>>>> as PC Chair. >>>>> >>>>> - Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 June 2018 7:08 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >>>>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ayden, >>>>> The draft seems reasonable and efficient. >>>>> >>>>> Who would run the process? Since Farzi excluded herself since she is >>>>> applying. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mart?n >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I have drafted a proposed procedure for determining our slate of >>>>> candidates to send to the PIR Board. Here it is on Google Docs - please >>>>> feel free to suggest revisions: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> ?Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 June 2018 1:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the note. >>>>> I think we have several actions related to this appointement: tweak >>>>> and adopt a procedure for appointment, outlining ceiteria and/or how to >>>>> evaluate candidates, draft call for candidates . do we have an set date by >>>>> when we have to send the recommendations to PIR? that will help us to set >>>>> the timeline for this appointment. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le lun. 11 juin 2018 ? 05:44, farzaneh badii >>>>> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is time to issue a call for appointing an NCSG representative to >>>>>> the Advisory Council of the PIR. I am representing NCSG currently. I will >>>>>> not get involved with the process of issuing the call and assessing >>>>>> applications since I will apply for the position. >>>>>> >>>>>> NCSG does not have a formal procedure for this appointment, so I >>>>>> suggest using NCUC operating procedure to carry this out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also note that PIR board has told us that NCSG should give them the >>>>>> slate of candidates with a recommendation and then the board would nominate >>>>>> the representative. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the procedure, you can replace NCUC EC with NCSG PC, note >>>>>> that since the PC does not select the final candidate you just need to >>>>>> decide the candidate you want to recommend to the board: >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. PIR Representative: >>>>>> a. Had served in a leadership position within the NCSG or NCUC in the >>>>>> past (former or current GNSO Councillors, Chairs of NCUC, EC members, >>>>>> NCUC-appointees, PC members). >>>>>> b. Can provide a recommendation letter from an experienced member who >>>>>> understands the role of the PIR Advisory Council Representative. >>>>>> c. Has contributed and initiated meaningful discussion on the NCUC or >>>>>> NCSG mailing lists. >>>>>> d. Has demonstrated knowledge of, or interest in the work of, the >>>>>> Public Interest Registry, and is willing to be an active participant in >>>>>> Public Interest Registry discussions and debates. >>>>>> >>>>>> C.Review and selection of candidates >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. NCUC EC will review all the candidates? statements. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. NCUC EC will evaluate each application based on qualifications. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Each NCUC EC member will provide justification as to why one >>>>>> candidate is more qualified than other applicants. Candidates who are not >>>>>> selected for the position shall be sent an email by the NCUC Chair >>>>>> informing them of the EC?s decision. Upon request of the candidate(s), or >>>>>> where otherwise appropriate, the Chair shall communicate to the applicant >>>>>> how they can increase their chances of appointment in future rounds. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. If the NCUC EC does not agree on a candidate, then a meeting shall >>>>>> be arranged in due course to discuss and deliberate the candidates? >>>>>> applications. >>>>>> >>>>>> 5. The deliberations about the candidates should be held >>>>>> confidentially but the record should be kept by Chair may be provided. >>>>>> >>>>>> 6. The meeting will be held privately, but the notes, recording, and >>>>>> the transcript should be kept for 2 years in case the EC decision is >>>>>> challenged. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 17:38:11 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 10:38:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> References: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Arsene, Given how rapidly the charter is being drafted - and let's be clear, it is being drafted as we speak by the other stakeholder groups - I thought it important to respond swiftly and to try to get this language inserted into the document. I did not advocate for anything that is inconsistent with the NCSG's values; call transcription is essential to holding ICANN accountable. So no, I do not think it was necessary for me to "share this with PC before sending to council list." That said I did forward my email to the PC ex post to keep those who are not on the drafting team informed as to what is happening. As for cost, it is simply a cost of doing business for ICANN. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 June 2018 7:29 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a practice we have been encouraging here. > > I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially when someone missed the call or need to cross check something or simply for archives. Sometimes transcription is better than listening to the recording for bandwidth reasons as well. > > Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this would cost. Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Please send back up to the Council list >> >> Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd >> >> Let?s save money elsewhere >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> >>> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >>> >>> Cheers! >>> Mart?n >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>> >>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> Cc: >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>> >>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Michele >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>> >>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>> >>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>> >>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>> >>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>> >>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>> >>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>> >>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>> >>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>> >>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>> >>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>> >>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>> >>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>> >>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>> >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>> >>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>> >>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>> >>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>> >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>> >>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>> >>>>> Suggested text: >>>>> >>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Jun 28 17:54:58 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 09:54:58 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> Message-ID: Backing up Ayden here....we are trying to be as transparent as possible here, but we cannot keep up with the drafting and we are here on the ground.? This is stacking up to be a highly political process, with set agendas from the parties and they are all preparing well.? We will not have time to reach community decisions and remain effective.? Transparency is about all we can manage. The next drafting team call is likely to be July 2-3, and we have to reach consensus.? There are a lot of issues which are already unfavourable to us.? So please keep your input coming, but time is against a robust consensus process at the NCSG level. You are going to have to trust your councillors. Stephanie Perrin On 2018-06-28 09:38, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi Arsene, > > Given how rapidly the charter is being drafted - and let's be clear, > it is being drafted as we speak by the other stakeholder groups - I > thought it important to respond swiftly and to try to get this > language inserted into the document. I did not advocate for anything > that is inconsistent with the NCSG's values; call transcription is > essential to holding ICANN accountable. So no, I do not think it was > necessary for me to "share this with PC before sending to council > list." That said I did forward my email to the PC ex post to keep > those who are not on the drafting team informed as to what is happening. > > As for cost, it is simply a cost of doing business for ICANN. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 28 June 2018 7:29 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a >> practice we have been encouraging here. >> >> I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially when >> someone missed the call or need to cross check something or simply >> for archives. Sometimes transcription is better than listening to the >> recording for bandwidth reasons as well. >> >> Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this would >> cost. Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > > wrote: >>> Please send back up to the Council list >>> >>> Transcription is not expensive and to save money here?is absurd >>> >>> Let?s save money elsewhere >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent >>> > wrote: >>>> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours >>>> coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> Mart?n >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>> >>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight>>>> > >>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Cc: >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs >>>>> involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds >>>>> would be better directed elsewhere >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Michele >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>> >>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>> >>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>> >>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>> >>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>> >>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59??9183072 >>>>> >>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>> >>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>> >>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside >>>>> Business Park,Sleaty >>>>> >>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland??Company No.: 370845 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Epdp-dt >>>> > on behalf of Ayden >>>>> F?rdeline > >>>>> *Reply-To: *Ayden F?rdeline >>>> > >>>>> *Date: *Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>> *To: *"epdp-dt at icann.org " >>>>> > >>>>> *Subject: *[Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP >>>>> Working Methods please: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *1) _All_ meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP >>>>> Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and >>>>> regular conference calls, including recording and >>>>> transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be >>>>> decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate >>>>> support to:/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and >>>>> said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly >>>>> accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to >>>>> GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the >>>>> provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and >>>>> conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the >>>>> EPDP will?need appropriate support to:/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *2) Google Docs may _only_ be used in conjunction with Google >>>>> Vault.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best >>>>> flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the >>>>> wiki and Google docs./ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best >>>>> flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do >>>>> so in accordance with the principles of accountability and >>>>> transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs >>>>> or other G Suite products are used, it _must_ be used in >>>>> conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival >>>>> purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used >>>>> only if they preserve information to a level that meets or >>>>> exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location >>>>> of ICANN's headquarters./ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of >>>>> the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final >>>>> report, into ICANN's official languages.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Suggested text: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into >>>>> ICANN's official languages in order to provide >>>>> non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access >>>>> to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), >>>>> this must consist of the executive summary and >>>>> recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a >>>>> translation of the entire report./ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 18:00:02 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:00:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2-UsJKKd8w4nv4xosB-HLROMwBZ5u5XSnsYjS9Smcixtl11CKNQJNOoJCyCwk0zVu2DhAfWjM9m1jKShiakDgW2XNAhE5sPEVWDHS1psGng=@ferdeline.com> Hi Farzi, I agree that a three hour course won't make anyone an expert, but the idea here is to leave people with more knowledge of data protection principles than they might have when they enter the EPDP. It's all about continual learning... We have also requested a budget for legal advice and a separate budget for "External experts/Advisors such as a data protection/GDPR expert, to complement expertise within the EPDP Team and other sources available." Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 June 2018 2:12 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > My personal opinion so far after seeing the comments on this suggested course is that the course might be of use to some of our own appointed members however, I honestly don't believe with a three hour course you can change the long standing values of people and fix their biases. But by having two legal counsels and getting legal opinion you can actually make stronger arguments and better and informed compromises. That's my opinion about this but I think in the end council will decide. > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:07 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I forgot to say we need money for the GDPR training to be delivered by an external partner... but here's the edits I have suggested to the EPDP doc so far. >> >> -Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 28 June 2018 12:34 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>> >>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>> >>> Please revise this text from: >>> >>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>> >>> To: >>> >>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>> >>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>> >>> Please revise the text from: >>> >>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>> >>> To: >>> >>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>> >>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>> >>> Suggested text: >>> >>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 18:04:11 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Epdp-dt] Updated Draft Membership Structure In-Reply-To: References: <73af2c7450b74fe6950c5e65bf4834de@verisign.com> Message-ID: I forgot to forward this on to the PC yesterday; I also sent the below email to the drafting team. I think this is really important and I would appreciate backup on the Council list. Many thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 27 June 2018 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thank you for preparing this, Keith. > > I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). > > I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. > > Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." > > In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." > > Thank you again for working on this, Keith. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden F?rdeline > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >> >> Please send comments!! >> >> Thanks, >> >> Keith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 18:05:00 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:05:00 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, I want to add one point as we discussed several times about coordination and not discussing the substance. I drafted the initial text on resources/working methods and may have missed stuff for sure as there was no so much input. However, I discovered the changes and amendments like everyone in DT list. I guess I could have been informed for suggestions beforehand no? the DT call won't be in 2nd or 3rd June and will factor that for our Policy Call next week. With regard to input, I insist that we cover all areas of real concerns like the scope. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 23:55, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Backing up Ayden here....we are trying to be as transparent as possible > here, but we cannot keep up with the drafting and we are here on the > ground. This is stacking up to be a highly political process, with set > agendas from the parties and they are all preparing well. We will not have > time to reach community decisions and remain effective. Transparency is > about all we can manage. > > The next drafting team call is likely to be July 2-3, and we have to reach > consensus. There are a lot of issues which are already unfavourable to > us. So please keep your input coming, but time is against a robust > consensus process at the NCSG level. You are going to have to trust your > councillors. > > Stephanie Perrin > > > On 2018-06-28 09:38, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Arsene, > > Given how rapidly the charter is being drafted - and let's be clear, it is > being drafted as we speak by the other stakeholder groups - I thought it > important to respond swiftly and to try to get this language inserted into > the document. I did not advocate for anything that is inconsistent with the > NCSG's values; call transcription is essential to holding ICANN > accountable. So no, I do not think it was necessary for me to "share this > with PC before sending to council list." That said I did forward my email > to the PC ex post to keep those who are not on the drafting team informed > as to what is happening. > > As for cost, it is simply a cost of doing business for ICANN. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 28 June 2018 7:29 AM, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > > I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a practice > we have been encouraging here. > > I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially when someone > missed the call or need to cross check something or simply for archives. > Sometimes transcription is better than listening to the recording for > bandwidth reasons as well. > > Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this would cost. > Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Please send back up to the Council list > > Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd > > Let?s save money elsewhere > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to > the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? > > Cheers! > Mart?n > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I will need back up here from Councillors. >> >> This is important. We need transcription. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org < >> epdp-dt at icann.org> >> Cc: >> >> Ayden >> >> >> >> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved >> with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better >> directed elsewhere >> >> >> >> I agree with most of your other points. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Michele >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Mr Michele Neylon >> >> Blacknight Solutions >> >> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >> >> https://www.blacknight.com/ >> >> http://blacknight.blog/ >> >> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >> >> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >> >> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >> >> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >> Park,Sleaty >> >> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Reply-To: *Ayden F?rdeline >> *Date: *Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >> *To: *"epdp-dt at icann.org" >> *Subject: *[Epdp-dt] Working Methods >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working >> Methods please: >> >> >> >> *1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* >> >> >> >> Please revise this text from: >> >> >> >> *In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups >> such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, >> including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration >> to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support >> to:* >> >> >> >> To: >> >> >> >> *All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said >> recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the >> ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, >> including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived >> mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In >> addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to:* >> >> >> >> *2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault.* >> >> >> >> Please revise the text from: >> >> >> >> *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility >> to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs.* >> >> >> >> To: >> >> >> >> *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility >> to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with >> the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to >> the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be >> used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival >> purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they >> preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards >> in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters.* >> >> >> >> *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial >> report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's >> official languages.* >> >> >> >> Suggested text: >> >> >> >> *The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's >> official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with >> an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial >> report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, >> and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report.* >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jun 28 18:18:27 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:18:27 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Apologies for not sending the edits through to you first; I sent them to the drafting team list as I saw other people (i.e. Erika) doing the same, and Donna suggested we do this (see email pasted below). I agree on coordination and I forgot you were the lead for this section. Anyway, any further edits to do with resources, I'll contact you first, but we need to scrutinise this entire document so I'll keep reading through it... Best wishes, Ayden == All If you have any suggested changes to the Charter, can I encourage you all to send an email to this list outlining your changes along with an explanation/rationale for the change. Please do not send them directly to Marika?we need to ensure that folks are aware of proposed changes/additions/deletions. It would be good to discuss the substance on the list and perhaps try to reach agreement before proceeding to changes. Thanks Donna Donna Austin ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 June 2018 5:05 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > I want to add one point as we discussed several times about coordination and not discussing the substance. I drafted the initial text on resources/working methods and may have missed stuff for sure as there was no so much input. However, I discovered the changes and amendments like everyone in DT list. I guess I could have been informed for suggestions beforehand no? > > the DT call won't be in 2nd or 3rd June and will factor that for our Policy Call next week. > With regard to input, I insist that we cover all areas of real concerns like the scope. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 23:55, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : > >> Backing up Ayden here....we are trying to be as transparent as possible here, but we cannot keep up with the drafting and we are here on the ground. This is stacking up to be a highly political process, with set agendas from the parties and they are all preparing well. We will not have time to reach community decisions and remain effective. Transparency is about all we can manage. >> >> The next drafting team call is likely to be July 2-3, and we have to reach consensus. There are a lot of issues which are already unfavourable to us. So please keep your input coming, but time is against a robust consensus process at the NCSG level. You are going to have to trust your councillors. >> >> Stephanie Perrin >> >> On 2018-06-28 09:38, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Hi Arsene, >>> >>> Given how rapidly the charter is being drafted - and let's be clear, it is being drafted as we speak by the other stakeholder groups - I thought it important to respond swiftly and to try to get this language inserted into the document. I did not advocate for anything that is inconsistent with the NCSG's values; call transcription is essential to holding ICANN accountable. So no, I do not think it was necessary for me to "share this with PC before sending to council list." That said I did forward my email to the PC ex post to keep those who are not on the drafting team informed as to what is happening. >>> >>> As for cost, it is simply a cost of doing business for ICANN. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 28 June 2018 7:29 AM, Ars?ne Tungali [](mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com) wrote: >>> >>>> I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a practice we have been encouraging here. >>>> >>>> I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially when someone missed the call or need to cross check something or simply for archives. Sometimes transcription is better than listening to the recording for bandwidth reasons as well. >>>> >>>> Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this would cost. Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? >>>> >>>> ----------------- >>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>> +243 993810967 >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>> >>>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> Please send back up to the Council list >>>>> >>>>> Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd >>>>> >>>>> Let?s save money elsewhere >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>> Mart?n >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michele >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suggested text: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Jun 28 21:12:21 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 13:12:21 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> Message-ID: <936677a3-d917-84af-ea1f-af29e14921b6@mail.utoronto.ca> Ok I will rely on you to provide information to the List Rafik, my apologies folks for the wrong date, I guess I was being optimistic.? As for concerns on the document....I had a lot.? Far beyond scope. cheers Stephanie On 2018-06-28 10:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > I want to add one point as we discussed several times about > coordination and not discussing the substance. I drafted the initial > text on resources/working methods and may have missed stuff for sure > as there was no so much input. However, I discovered the changes and > amendments like everyone in DT list. I guess I could have been > informed for suggestions beforehand no? > > the DT call won't be in 2nd or 3rd June and will factor that for our > Policy Call next week. > With regard to input, I insist that we cover all areas of real > concerns like the scope. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?jeu. 28 juin 2018 ??23:55, Stephanie Perrin > > a ?crit?: > > Backing up Ayden here....we are trying to be as transparent as > possible here, but we cannot keep up with the drafting and we are > here on the ground.? This is stacking up to be a highly political > process, with set agendas from the parties and they are all > preparing well.? We will not have time to reach community > decisions and remain effective. Transparency is about all we can > manage. > > The next drafting team call is likely to be July 2-3, and we have > to reach consensus.? There are a lot of issues which are already > unfavourable to us.? So please keep your input coming, but time is > against a robust consensus process at the NCSG level.? You are > going to have to trust your councillors. > > Stephanie Perrin > > > On 2018-06-28 09:38, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> Hi Arsene, >> >> Given how rapidly the charter is being drafted - and let's be >> clear, it is being drafted as we speak by the other stakeholder >> groups - I thought it important to respond swiftly and to try to >> get this language inserted into the document. I did not advocate >> for anything that is inconsistent with the NCSG's values; call >> transcription is essential to holding ICANN accountable. So no, I >> do not think it was necessary for me to "share this with PC >> before sending to council list." That said I did forward my email >> to the PC ex post to keep those who are not on the drafting team >> informed as to what is happening. >> >> As for cost, it is simply a cost of doing business for ICANN. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 28 June 2018 7:29 AM, Ars?ne Tungali >> wrote: >> >>> I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a >>> practice we have been encouraging here. >>> >>> I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially >>> when someone missed the call or need to cross check something or >>> simply for archives. Sometimes transcription is better than >>> listening to the recording for bandwidth reasons as well. >>> >>> Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this >>> would cost. Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? >>> >>> ----------------- >>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>> +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline >>> > wrote: >>>> Please send back up to the Council list >>>> >>>> Transcription is not expensive and to save money here?is absurd >>>> >>>> Let?s save money elsewhere >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent >>>> > wrote: >>>>> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours >>>>> coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers! >>>>> Mart?n >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>>> >>>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight>>>>> > >>>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The >>>>>> costs involved with that are disproportionately high and >>>>>> ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Michele >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>> >>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>> >>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59??9183072 >>>>>> >>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>> >>>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside >>>>>> Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>> >>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland??Company No.: >>>>>> 370845 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *Epdp-dt >>>>> > on behalf of Ayden >>>>>> F?rdeline > >>>>>> *Reply-To: *Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> > >>>>>> *Date: *Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>>> *To: *"epdp-dt at icann.org " >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Subject: *[Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the >>>>>> EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *1) _All_ meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> /In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO >>>>>> PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing >>>>>> lists and regular conference calls, including recording >>>>>> and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to >>>>>> be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need >>>>>> appropriate support to:/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> /All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, >>>>>> and said recordings and call transcriptions must be >>>>>> publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard >>>>>> support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but >>>>>> not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived >>>>>> mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be >>>>>> required. In addition, the EPDP will?need appropriate >>>>>> support to:/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *2) Google Docs may _only_ be used in conjunction with >>>>>> Google Vault.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> /the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the >>>>>> best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such >>>>>> as the wiki and Google docs./ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> /the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the >>>>>> best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but >>>>>> it must do so in accordance with the principles of >>>>>> accountability and transparency that are so important to >>>>>> the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are >>>>>> used, it _must_ be used in conjunction with Google Vault, >>>>>> which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if >>>>>> other tools are used, they may be used only if they >>>>>> preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds >>>>>> eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of >>>>>> ICANN's headquarters./ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations >>>>>> of the initial report for public comment, and of the >>>>>> entire final report, into ICANN's official languages.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested text: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> /The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into >>>>>> ICANN's official languages in order to provide >>>>>> non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of >>>>>> access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial >>>>>> report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and >>>>>> recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a >>>>>> translation of the entire report./ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 23:26:08 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 05:26:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft timeline for next steps to initiate EPDP and adopt EPDP Team Charter In-Reply-To: <25D91182-871F-4AE0-8E8D-08A37B45B759@icann.org> References: <25D91182-871F-4AE0-8E8D-08A37B45B759@icann.org> Message-ID: hi all, For reference, the timeline is attached. we got: - To encourage candidates to submit EOI to be Chair. - To work on amendments to the charter, in particular, composition asking for equality. the input will be more straightforward via google doc. - start our process to find and appoint representatives from NCSG quickly we have to prepare for the DT next week Thursday, so likely we can schedule our NCSG Policy call on Tuesday. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft timeline EPDP Next Steps HF.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41756 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 23:31:27 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:31:27 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, This makes sense and i understand the urgency. Thanks for explaining. But I would still want you to expand upon the costing of meeting transcription. You read budgets very well, much better than many of us so please let us know on this, when you have some time. Thanks, Arsene ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Arsene, > > Given how rapidly the charter is being drafted - and let's be clear, it is being drafted as we speak by the other stakeholder groups - I thought it important to respond swiftly and to try to get this language inserted into the document. I did not advocate for anything that is inconsistent with the NCSG's values; call transcription is essential to holding ICANN accountable. So no, I do not think it was necessary for me to "share this with PC before sending to council list." That said I did forward my email to the PC ex post to keep those who are not on the drafting team informed as to what is happening. > > As for cost, it is simply a cost of doing business for ICANN. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 28 June 2018 7:29 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >> I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a practice we have been encouraging here. >> >> I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially when someone missed the call or need to cross check something or simply for archives. Sometimes transcription is better than listening to the recording for bandwidth reasons as well. >> >> Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this would cost. Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> Please send back up to the Council list >>> >>> Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd >>> >>> Let?s save money elsewhere >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> Mart?n >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>>> >>>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Michele >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>> >>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>> >>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>> >>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>> >>>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>> >>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested text: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Thu Jun 28 23:46:52 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:46:52 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Farzaneh, chair of the NCSG I am not sure to understand your point here, why transcription in other languages does not make sense? @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 28 Jun 2018, at 02:45, farzaneh badii wrote: > > are we talking about transcription in languages other than English? > > transcription of formal meetings in English makes sense, it has been helpful. I don't think it makes sense to have transcription in other languages. but I am not sure that is being debated. > > Farzaneh > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:41 PM Martin Pablo Silva Valent > wrote: > I agree that transcript in other languages would be good in almost every mesure posible, specially if we have AI and bulk prices on it. At least is worth asking staff how that impact this one time on Budget. > > Cheers, > Mart?n > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:37 dorothy g > wrote: > Why are the costs high? Are we not using AI? Which languages are we transcribing to? Perhaps Mr. Neylon could tell us more about the disproportionate costs? > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > I will need back up here from Councillors. > > This is important. We need transcription. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight> >> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >> To: Ayden F?rdeline >,epdp-dt at icann.org > >> Cc: >> Ayden >> >> >> >> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >> >> >> >> I agree with most of your other points. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Michele >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Mr Michele Neylon >> >> Blacknight Solutions >> >> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >> >> https://www.blacknight.com/ >> http://blacknight.blog/ >> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >> >> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >> >> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >> ------------------------------- >> >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >> >> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Epdp-dt > on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline > >> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline > >> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org " > >> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >> >> >> >> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >> >> >> >> Please revise this text from: >> >> >> >> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >> >> >> >> To: >> >> >> >> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >> >> >> >> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >> >> >> >> Please revise the text from: >> >> >> >> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >> >> >> >> To: >> >> >> >> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >> >> >> >> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >> >> >> >> Suggested text: >> >> >> >> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 23:48:05 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:48:05 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft timeline for next steps to initiate EPDP and adopt EPDP Team Charter In-Reply-To: References: <25D91182-871F-4AE0-8E8D-08A37B45B759@icann.org> Message-ID: <132BF421-9BA3-4586-A618-1E4C5F5E3E27@gmail.com> Thanks for this Rafik, I would like to send my apologies as i cannot attend the PC meeting on Tuesday (i will be traveling) but will attend the DT call on Thursday. I will try to read meeting transcripts but will appreciate (if possible) for someone to share action items or key meeting points on this list after the meeting. Just for the record, can you please confirm the final decision/agreement (if any already) on the number of reps per SG or SO/ACs for the EPDP Team? Also my understanding is that the EPDP chair will not come from the appointed Team members. I don?t think we have discussed this on this list so i would appreciate any clarification on what was agreed upon (if already done) with regards to the EPDP leadership team composition. Or maybe this will be defined in the charter? Thank you very much. Arsene Ps: Not being onsite makes my life not easy to come up with all the pieces to understand the process so far. I am doing my best to catch up :) ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 28, 2018, at 10:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > hi all, > > For reference, the timeline is attached. we got: > - To encourage candidates to submit EOI to be Chair. > - To work on amendments to the charter, in particular, composition asking for equality. the input will be more straightforward via google doc. > - start our process to find and appoint representatives from NCSG quickly > > we have to prepare for the DT next week Thursday, so likely we can schedule our NCSG Policy call on Tuesday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From farell at benin2point0.org Thu Jun 28 23:56:01 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:56:01 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New PC NCSG NCUC rep In-Reply-To: <8B5AFDD7-3E46-4E94-BEE1-72F30D21E771@gmail.com> References: <8B5AFDD7-3E46-4E94-BEE1-72F30D21E771@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50C067A3-305E-4201-A056-ED046F8625DD@benin2point0.org> Welcome onboard, we need somebody with your skills hier. As someone who worked with you during the Policy Training in PR, I can say that you have all the skills required and I wish that this new opportunity gives you more motivation to contribute on policy-related stuffs. I wish you a good trip in the PC. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 27 Jun 2018, at 20:16, Cl?udio Lucena wrote: > > Thanks everyone, and I hope to start engaging and contributing as soon as possible. > Cl?udio > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 27 Jun 2018, at 12:27, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Thanks Renata and congratulations to Claudio for the appointment >> @Maryam please add Claudio to NCSG PC list and update wiki page for leadership >> >> Rafik >> >> Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 00:14, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > a ?crit : >> [observer] >> >> Dear Rafik >> >> The NCUC EC has selected the replacement for Nick Shorey on the PC >> NCSG, Claudio Lucena, here copied. >> Please add him to PC NCSG list. >> >> Thank you >> >> Renata > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 00:06:11 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:06:11 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New PC NCSG NCUC rep In-Reply-To: <50C067A3-305E-4201-A056-ED046F8625DD@benin2point0.org> References: <8B5AFDD7-3E46-4E94-BEE1-72F30D21E771@gmail.com> <50C067A3-305E-4201-A056-ED046F8625DD@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Godspeed Claudio! Mart?n On Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 15:56 Farell FOLLY wrote: > Welcome onboard, we need somebody with your skills hier. As someone who > worked with you during the Policy Training in PR, I can say that you have > all the skills required and I wish that this new opportunity gives you more > motivation to contribute on policy-related stuffs. > > I wish you a good trip in the PC. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > On 27 Jun 2018, at 20:16, Cl?udio Lucena wrote: > > Thanks everyone, and I hope to start engaging and contributing as soon as > possible. > Cl?udio > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 27 Jun 2018, at 12:27, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Thanks Renata and congratulations to Claudio for the appointment > @Maryam please add Claudio to NCSG PC list and update wiki page for > leadership > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 00:14, Renata Aquino Ribeiro a > ?crit : > >> [observer] >> >> Dear Rafik >> >> The NCUC EC has selected the replacement for Nick Shorey on the PC >> NCSG, Claudio Lucena, here copied. >> Please add him to PC NCSG list. >> >> Thank you >> >> Renata >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 00:06:58 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 23:06:58 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft timeline for next steps to initiate EPDP and adopt EPDP Team Charter In-Reply-To: <132BF421-9BA3-4586-A618-1E4C5F5E3E27@gmail.com> References: <25D91182-871F-4AE0-8E8D-08A37B45B759@icann.org> <132BF421-9BA3-4586-A618-1E4C5F5E3E27@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6189253C-6ACE-4BD2-8EAF-2BEE84A415D1@gmail.com> Hi Rafik, all, Please disregard the questions i raised asking for clarification. All these details are to be found in the draft charter. My apologies for that. Regards, Arsene ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 28, 2018, at 10:48 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > > Thanks for this Rafik, > > I would like to send my apologies as i cannot attend the PC meeting on Tuesday (i will be traveling) but will attend the DT call on Thursday. I will try to read meeting transcripts but will appreciate (if possible) for someone to share action items or key meeting points on this list after the meeting. > > Just for the record, can you please confirm the final decision/agreement (if any already) on the number of reps per SG or SO/ACs for the EPDP Team? > > Also my understanding is that the EPDP chair will not come from the appointed Team members. I don?t think we have discussed this on this list so i would appreciate any clarification on what was agreed upon (if already done) with regards to the EPDP leadership team composition. Or maybe this will be defined in the charter? > > Thank you very much. > Arsene > > Ps: Not being onsite makes my life not easy to come up with all the pieces to understand the process so far. I am doing my best to catch up :) > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > >> On Jun 28, 2018, at 10:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> hi all, >> >> For reference, the timeline is attached. we got: >> - To encourage candidates to submit EOI to be Chair. >> - To work on amendments to the charter, in particular, composition asking for equality. the input will be more straightforward via google doc. >> - start our process to find and appoint representatives from NCSG quickly >> >> we have to prepare for the DT next week Thursday, so likely we can schedule our NCSG Policy call on Tuesday. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 00:08:33 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 23:08:33 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New PC NCSG NCUC rep In-Reply-To: References: <8B5AFDD7-3E46-4E94-BEE1-72F30D21E771@gmail.com> <50C067A3-305E-4201-A056-ED046F8625DD@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: welcome onboard Claudio. You are a good addition to the PC team and I look forward to working with you! ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 28, 2018, at 11:06 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > > Godspeed Claudio! > > Mart?n > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 15:56 Farell FOLLY wrote: >> Welcome onboard, we need somebody with your skills hier. As someone who worked with you during the Policy Training in PR, I can say that you have all the skills required and I wish that this new opportunity gives you more motivation to contribute on policy-related stuffs. >> >> I wish you a good trip in the PC. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 27 Jun 2018, at 20:16, Cl?udio Lucena wrote: >>> >>> Thanks everyone, and I hope to start engaging and contributing as soon as possible. >>> Cl?udio >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 27 Jun 2018, at 12:27, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Renata and congratulations to Claudio for the appointment >>>> @Maryam please add Claudio to NCSG PC list and update wiki page for leadership >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>>> Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 ? 00:14, Renata Aquino Ribeiro a ?crit : >>>>> [observer] >>>>> >>>>> Dear Rafik >>>>> >>>>> The NCUC EC has selected the replacement for Nick Shorey on the PC >>>>> NCSG, Claudio Lucena, here copied. >>>>> Please add him to PC NCSG list. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you >>>>> >>>>> Renata >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 01:13:39 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:13:39 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: <5JY028jHCEP6AyRqkRHWz35aNjbBlq-doIa_AamK9gfcmn664TE7zxPrPb2o31zRdNABo2t6igyqWAKIEQQi2zTcu1orGJtkJ0N9mI4nECo=@ferdeline.com> References: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> <5JY028jHCEP6AyRqkRHWz35aNjbBlq-doIa_AamK9gfcmn664TE7zxPrPb2o31zRdNABo2t6igyqWAKIEQQi2zTcu1orGJtkJ0N9mI4nECo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <5938E49A-138E-40DE-9BD8-18C4ED6C494C@gmail.com> Thank you! ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 28, 2018, at 11:55 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Arsene, > > There are too many variables. It depends on how long the call is, how urgently the transcript is required, the level of accuracy demanded (can one person review it or must it be cross-checked and reviewed by someone else?), whether it is done internally by an ICANN employee or outsourced to an agency or contractor, etc. In any case transcription is a cost of doing business and too important to brush aside because it has cost implications. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 28 June 2018 10:31 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> This makes sense and i understand the urgency. Thanks for explaining. >> >> But I would still want you to expand upon the costing of meeting transcription. You read budgets very well, much better than many of us so please let us know on this, when you have some time. >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> Hi Arsene, >>> >>> Given how rapidly the charter is being drafted - and let's be clear, it is being drafted as we speak by the other stakeholder groups - I thought it important to respond swiftly and to try to get this language inserted into the document. I did not advocate for anything that is inconsistent with the NCSG's values; call transcription is essential to holding ICANN accountable. So no, I do not think it was necessary for me to "share this with PC before sending to council list." That said I did forward my email to the PC ex post to keep those who are not on the drafting team informed as to what is happening. >>> >>> As for cost, it is simply a cost of doing business for ICANN. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 28 June 2018 7:29 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>>> >>>> I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a practice we have been encouraging here. >>>> >>>> I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially when someone missed the call or need to cross check something or simply for archives. Sometimes transcription is better than listening to the recording for bandwidth reasons as well. >>>> >>>> Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this would cost. Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? >>>> >>>> ----------------- >>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>>> +243 993810967 >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>> >>>>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> Please send back up to the Council list >>>>> >>>>> Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd >>>>> >>>>> Let?s save money elsewhere >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>>>> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>> Mart?n >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michele >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suggested text: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 01:18:58 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:18:58 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO Chair election timeline and incoming councilors In-Reply-To: References: <5F8683BD-0B87-4476-BD22-2B0AE1B924C2@icann.org> Message-ID: <7625404E-6423-43FD-B64D-232C7EC6A4A6@gmail.com> In the middle of everything else happening, we will need to think in time if we are offering a chair and start strategizing ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Wow, not long until our next election... > > -Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 27 June 2018 10:54 PM, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Please see attached the timeline for the GNSO Chair nomination open date and election. >> >> >> >> Please remember that new councilors are eligible for nomination as Council chair so the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies? elections should be over by the date of nominations. New councilors are to be announced on the 25th August 2018. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Nathalie >> >> >> >> >> >> Nathalie Peregrine >> >> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >> >> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann >> >> >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> >> >> >> >> > > <2018 GNSO Chair Election Timeline.docx> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jun 29 00:55:01 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:55:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: <822AC960-1B50-45CB-9773-D1E070A93695@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5JY028jHCEP6AyRqkRHWz35aNjbBlq-doIa_AamK9gfcmn664TE7zxPrPb2o31zRdNABo2t6igyqWAKIEQQi2zTcu1orGJtkJ0N9mI4nECo=@ferdeline.com> Hi Arsene, There are too many variables. It depends on how long the call is, how urgently the transcript is required, the level of accuracy demanded (can one person review it or must it be cross-checked and reviewed by someone else?), whether it is done internally by an ICANN employee or outsourced to an agency or contractor, etc. In any case transcription is a cost of doing business and too important to brush aside because it has cost implications. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 June 2018 10:31 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > This makes sense and i understand the urgency. Thanks for explaining. > > But I would still want you to expand upon the costing of meeting transcription. You read budgets very well, much better than many of us so please let us know on this, when you have some time. > > Thanks, > Arsene > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 28, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi Arsene, >> >> Given how rapidly the charter is being drafted - and let's be clear, it is being drafted as we speak by the other stakeholder groups - I thought it important to respond swiftly and to try to get this language inserted into the document. I did not advocate for anything that is inconsistent with the NCSG's values; call transcription is essential to holding ICANN accountable. So no, I do not think it was necessary for me to "share this with PC before sending to council list." That said I did forward my email to the PC ex post to keep those who are not on the drafting team informed as to what is happening. >> >> As for cost, it is simply a cost of doing business for ICANN. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 28 June 2018 7:29 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >>> I wish you shared this with PC before sending to council list, a practice we have been encouraging here. >>> >>> I also agree that meeting transcription is useful especially when someone missed the call or need to cross check something or simply for archives. Sometimes transcription is better than listening to the recording for bandwidth reasons as well. >>> >>> Before i can back up this, i would like to know how much this would cost. Is it possible to get this estimate from staff? >>> >>> ----------------- >>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>> +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 2:54 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Please send back up to the Council list >>>> >>>> Transcription is not expensive and to save money here is absurd >>>> >>>> Let?s save money elsewhere >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:45, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ayden, there I gabe back up in transcript. Did you sent yours coments to the pc? Did we reach any conclusions on them? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers! >>>>> Mart?n >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:31 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michele >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suggested text: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jun 29 01:28:21 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 18:28:21 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO Chair election timeline and incoming councilors In-Reply-To: <7625404E-6423-43FD-B64D-232C7EC6A4A6@gmail.com> References: <5F8683BD-0B87-4476-BD22-2B0AE1B924C2@icann.org> <7625404E-6423-43FD-B64D-232C7EC6A4A6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cpaZE4J3vGjxlxhfsESAIZtq6PqbS__ACEvIMVjYsCYZn-WxPOa2pY16x3qov8r-jKlyF3MnSLIDzZZJQsfM8NIumUaIMOBdBQcLuySnwA=@ferdeline.com> In my opinion, Rafik would make an excellent Council chair. ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 29 June 2018 12:18 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > In the middle of everything else happening, we will need to think in time if we are offering a chair and start strategizing > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Wow, not long until our next election... >> >> -Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 27 June 2018 10:54 PM, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Please see attached the timeline for the GNSO Chair nomination open date and election. >>> >>> Please remember that new councilors are eligible for nomination as Council chair so the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies? elections should be over by the date of nominations. New councilors are to be announced on the 25th August 2018. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Nathalie >>> >>> Nathalie Peregrine >>> >>> Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Email: [nathalie.peregrine at icann.org ](nathalie.peregrine at icann.org%20) >>> >>> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=-d9m4sr16OXloyLjz4TF6npbe51hgE0EHtoX1U6WUOA&s=Bw2Uzbh2Pu1X0lObLtbwtN5ZNEP3ECdPAfcqzVvIOYE&e=) > >> <2018 GNSO Chair Election Timeline.docx> > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 01:28:56 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:28:56 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO Chair election timeline and incoming councilors In-Reply-To: <7625404E-6423-43FD-B64D-232C7EC6A4A6@gmail.com> References: <5F8683BD-0B87-4476-BD22-2B0AE1B924C2@icann.org> <7625404E-6423-43FD-B64D-232C7EC6A4A6@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Arsene, It is usual process and follow known phases. Best, Rafik On Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:19 PM Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > In the middle of everything else happening, we will need to think in time > if we are offering a chair and start strategizing > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Wow, not long until our next election... > > -Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 27 June 2018 10:54 PM, Nathalie Peregrine > wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Please see attached the timeline for the GNSO Chair nomination open date > and election. > > > > Please remember that new councilors are eligible for nomination as Council > chair so the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies? elections should be > over by the date of nominations. New councilors are to be announced on the > 25th August 2018. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Nathalie > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine > > Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > > Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > > > > > > > > <2018 GNSO Chair Election Timeline.docx> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jun 29 00:49:10 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:49:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farell, In this case, the calls will be in English. Transcriptions are taken as a verbatim record of the call, so they are done in the original language (in this instance, English). If they were converted to other languages they would be translated. I do not think it would be practical to have the transcripts translated into other languages, but I have asked that initial and final reports be translated into ICANN's seven languages. I hope this is helpful. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 June 2018 10:46 PM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear Farzaneh, chair of the NCSG > > I am not sure to understand your point here, why transcription in other languages does not make sense? > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > >> On 28 Jun 2018, at 02:45, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> are we talking about transcription in languages other than English? >> >> transcription of formal meetings in English makes sense, it has been helpful. I don't think it makes sense to have transcription in other languages. but I am not sure that is being debated. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:41 PM Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> >>> I agree that transcript in other languages would be good in almost every mesure posible, specially if we have AI and bulk prices on it. At least is worth asking staff how that impact this one time on Budget. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mart?n >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:37 dorothy g wrote: >>> >>>> Why are the costs high? Are we not using AI? Which languages are we transcribing to? Perhaps Mr. Neylon could tell us more about the disproportionate costs? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>>>> >>>>> This is important. We need transcription. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline ,epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Michele >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>> >>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>> >>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>> >>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>> >>>>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>> >>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>>> >>>>>> To: >>>>>> >>>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>>> >>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>>> >>>>>> To: >>>>>> >>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested text: >>>>>> >>>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jun 29 00:18:10 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:18:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft timeline for next steps to initiate EPDP and adopt EPDP Team Charter In-Reply-To: <6189253C-6ACE-4BD2-8EAF-2BEE84A415D1@gmail.com> References: <25D91182-871F-4AE0-8E8D-08A37B45B759@icann.org> <132BF421-9BA3-4586-A618-1E4C5F5E3E27@gmail.com> <6189253C-6ACE-4BD2-8EAF-2BEE84A415D1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Tuesday at our usual time would work for me for a special PC meeting call. -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 June 2018 11:06 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > ?? > > Hi Rafik, all, > > Please disregard the questions i raised asking for clarification. All these details are to be found in the draft charter. > > My apologies for that. > > Regards, > > Arsene > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ars?ne Tungali, > > about.me/ArseneTungali > > +243 993810967 > > GPG: 523644A0 > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > > On Jun 28, 2018, at 10:48 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: > > > > Thanks for this Rafik, > > > > I would like to send my apologies as i cannot attend the PC meeting on Tuesday (i will be traveling) but will attend the DT call on Thursday. I will try to read meeting transcripts but will appreciate (if possible) for someone to share action items or key meeting points on this list after the meeting. > > > > Just for the record, can you please confirm the final decision/agreement (if any already) on the number of reps per SG or SO/ACs for the EPDP Team? > > > > Also my understanding is that the EPDP chair will not come from the appointed Team members. I don?t think we have discussed this on this list so i would appreciate any clarification on what was agreed upon (if already done) with regards to the EPDP leadership team composition. Or maybe this will be defined in the charter? > > > > Thank you very much. > > > > Arsene > > > > Ps: Not being onsite makes my life not easy to come up with all the pieces to understand the process so far. I am doing my best to catch up :) > > > > Ars?ne Tungali, > > > > about.me/ArseneTungali > > > > +243 993810967 > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > > > > On Jun 28, 2018, at 10:26 PM, Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > hi all, > > > > > > For reference, the timeline is attached. we got: > > > > > > - To encourage candidates to submit EOI to be Chair. > > > - To work on amendments to the charter, in particular, composition asking for equality. the input will be more straightforward via google doc. > > > - start our process to find and appoint representatives from NCSG quickly > > > > > > we have to prepare for the DT next week Thursday, so likely we can schedule our NCSG Policy call on Tuesday. > > > > > > 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 From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 01:58:35 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:58:35 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Charter Templates for providing additional feedback References: <109272F9-500E-4DDB-ACD3-9FA09E532EC7@icann.org> Message-ID: <4C1DA22F-A40C-47D1-A561-16ABF46CC95C@gmail.com> I think this is very well organized, good job from staff. All comments are captured here (i believe). Just quick one: On the EPDP Team, do we all agree to push for 1 member (+ 1 alternate) from ACs? ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) Begin forwarded message: > From: Caitlin Tubergen > Date: June 29, 2018 at 12:50:15 AM GMT+2 > To: "Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt" > Subject: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Charter Templates for providing additional feedback > > Dear Drafting Team Members, > > Thank you for all of your work at ICANN62. > > In an effort to catalogue feedback in one place and avoid version control issues, ICANN Staff has created Google Doc templates that you may use to continue to provide feedback on the draft charter. Each template provides: > > The current text in the charter > A section for comments/concerns/feedback > Proposed compromise text (if any) > > The templates are divided by category so that you will be able to zero in on the categories you would like to provide additional feedback on. Additionally, multiple templates prevent one template from becoming too long and unwieldy. > > We have done our best to input the comments received via the list so far, but please feel free to comment on the text if your feedback was inadvertently omitted. > > If you would like to provide additional feedback, please be sure to put your name next to the feedback so it is clear who is making the suggestion(s). > > Here are the links to the templates: > > Scope > Membership Criteria > EPDP Team > Key Metrics Considerations > Leadership > Recommended Working Methods and Resources > Problem/Issue Escalation & Resolution Processes > Decision-Making Methodologies > Problem/Issue Escalation & Resolution Processes > > If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. > > Kind regards, and safe travels, > > Caitlin > > Caitlin Tubergen > Policy Senior Manager - GNSO > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > Office: +1 310 578 8666 > Mobile: +1 310 699 5326 > Email: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 02:02:06 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 18:02:06 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Charter Templates for providing additional feedback In-Reply-To: <4C1DA22F-A40C-47D1-A561-16ABF46CC95C@gmail.com> References: <109272F9-500E-4DDB-ACD3-9FA09E532EC7@icann.org> <4C1DA22F-A40C-47D1-A561-16ABF46CC95C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Only councillors are supposed to make proposals or share from their groups to the google docs . Best, Rafik On Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:58 PM Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > I think this is very well organized, good job from staff. > > All comments are captured here (i believe). > > Just quick one: > > On the EPDP Team, do we all agree to push for 1 member (+ 1 alternate) > from ACs? > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Caitlin Tubergen > *Date:* June 29, 2018 at 12:50:15 AM GMT+2 > *To:* "Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt" > *Subject:* *[Epdp-dt] EPDP Charter Templates for providing additional > feedback* > > Dear Drafting Team Members, > > > > Thank you for all of your work at ICANN62. > > > > In an effort to catalogue feedback in one place and avoid version control > issues, ICANN Staff has created Google Doc templates that you may use to > continue to provide feedback on the draft charter. Each template provides: > > > > - The current text in the charter > - A section for comments/concerns/feedback > - Proposed compromise text (if any) > > > > The templates are divided by category so that you will be able to zero in > on the categories you would like to provide additional feedback on. > Additionally, multiple templates prevent one template from becoming too > long and unwieldy. > > > > We have done our best to input the comments received via the list so far, > but please feel free to comment on the text if your feedback was > inadvertently omitted. > > > > If you would like to provide additional feedback, please be sure to put > your name next to the feedback so it is clear who is making the > suggestion(s). > > > > Here are the links to the templates: > > > > - Scope > > - Membership Criteria > > - EPDP Team > > - Key Metrics Considerations > > - Leadership > > - Recommended Working Methods and Resources > > - Problem/Issue Escalation & Resolution Processes > > - Decision-Making Methodologies > > - Problem/Issue Escalation & Resolution Processes > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. > > > > Kind regards, and safe travels, > > > > Caitlin > > > > *Caitlin Tubergen* > > Policy Senior Manager - GNSO > > ICANN > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > Office: +1 310 578 8666 > > Mobile: +1 310 699 5326 > > Email: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 02:09:51 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:09:51 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Charter Templates for providing additional feedback In-Reply-To: References: <109272F9-500E-4DDB-ACD3-9FA09E532EC7@icann.org> <4C1DA22F-A40C-47D1-A561-16ABF46CC95C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <19D51974-2BB2-4ADB-B01C-1E4457A1B633@gmail.com> Of course, i didn?t suggest otherwise. Did i? ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jun 29, 2018, at 1:02 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > Only councillors are supposed to make proposals or share from their groups to the google docs . > > > Best, > > Rafik > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:58 PM Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> I think this is very well organized, good job from staff. >> >> All comments are captured here (i believe). >> >> Just quick one: >> >> On the EPDP Team, do we all agree to push for 1 member (+ 1 alternate) from ACs? >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Caitlin Tubergen >>> Date: June 29, 2018 at 12:50:15 AM GMT+2 >>> To: "Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt" >>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Charter Templates for providing additional feedback >>> >>> Dear Drafting Team Members, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for all of your work at ICANN62. >>> >>> >>> >>> In an effort to catalogue feedback in one place and avoid version control issues, ICANN Staff has created Google Doc templates that you may use to continue to provide feedback on the draft charter. Each template provides: >>> >>> >>> >>> The current text in the charter >>> A section for comments/concerns/feedback >>> Proposed compromise text (if any) >>> >>> >>> The templates are divided by category so that you will be able to zero in on the categories you would like to provide additional feedback on. Additionally, multiple templates prevent one template from becoming too long and unwieldy. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have done our best to input the comments received via the list so far, but please feel free to comment on the text if your feedback was inadvertently omitted. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you would like to provide additional feedback, please be sure to put your name next to the feedback so it is clear who is making the suggestion(s). >>> >>> >>> >>> Here are the links to the templates: >>> >>> >>> >>> Scope >>> Membership Criteria >>> EPDP Team >>> Key Metrics Considerations >>> Leadership >>> Recommended Working Methods and Resources >>> Problem/Issue Escalation & Resolution Processes >>> Decision-Making Methodologies >>> Problem/Issue Escalation & Resolution Processes >>> >>> >>> If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, and safe travels, >>> >>> >>> >>> Caitlin >>> >>> >>> >>> Caitlin Tubergen >>> >>> Policy Senior Manager - GNSO >>> >>> ICANN >>> >>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >>> >>> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >>> >>> Office: +1 310 578 8666 >>> >>> Mobile: +1 310 699 5326 >>> >>> Email: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 16:31:10 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:31:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Who is going to Barcelona? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Terri Agnew Dear all, In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by *Wednesday, 18 July 2018.* A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you*, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel to Barcelona. 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. Many thanks for your cooperation! With kind regards, *Terri * * ---* *Terri Agnew* Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ -- Farzaneh -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jun 29 19:27:48 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:27:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <3fhmnX95EXyvOEXBEvY6wkHlvNSRM8OnYTB1yQjg4GoM5MDavXuXxb5n5Ks7dKvDtl6Qt2ARr-fb5rXMYaEC8Jho8X8kVwqm8t2jsh5ax_g=@ferdeline.com> Hi Farzi, Thanks for your email. I will be in Barcelona. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 29 June 2018 3:31 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Who is going to Barcelona? > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Terri Agnew > > Dear all, > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Wednesday, 18 July 2018. > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Please note that if you are a GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel to Barcelona. > > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. > > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. > > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. > > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > With kind regards, > > Terri > > --- > > Terri Agnew > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: terri.agnew at icann.org > > Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers) > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > > -- > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 21:13:23 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:13:23 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <16D98FAD-2DE9-45B5-976A-D92AD77B871C@gmail.com> I will also be going, do you need me to contact Jospeh or do something else? Cheers, Mart?n > On 29 Jun 2018, at 08:31, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > Who is going to Barcelona? > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Terri Agnew > > > Dear all, > > > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Wednesday, 18 July 2018. > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Please note that if you are a GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: > > > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel to Barcelona. > > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. > > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. > > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. > > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. > > > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > > > With kind regards, > > Terri > > --- > > Terri Agnew > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: terri.agnew at icann.org > Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > > > > > > > -- > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 21:19:41 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:19:41 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality References: Message-ID: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general understanding of, yesterday. Martin > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality > Date: 29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST > To: epdp-dt at icann.org, Marika Konings > > I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. > > As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested interest in the results of this PDP? > > > > safe travels to all > > --- > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > > El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: > >> All >> >> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >> >> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >> >> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. >> >> Thanks >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> 100 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Jun 30 02:21:51 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:21:51 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: <074c0e39-640f-3d01-b98a-a9f522f3da16@mpicc.de> References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> <074c0e39-640f-3d01-b98a-a9f522f3da16@mpicc.de> Message-ID: Hi all, Just a reminder, we have two weeks until this public comment window closes. We need to share this with members soon for their input as well. Please can you review the comment and advise when it can be shared on the NCSG list. Thanks! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing Best, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 June 2018 4:30 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Thanks Rafik and Ayden, > > I will go through the document in the next 23 hours (that's what left from suggested 24h) :-) I might propose some edits, I see that the document is, indeed, different from what is used to be a week ago, but may be some surgery is still required (not a major one, but I would love to soften the language a wee bit bit in parts - Ayden hope you forgive me! :)) > > Okay, the clocks start ticking for me - 23 hours. > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > On 18/06/18 16:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks, Rafik; please note that I have reviewed and edited the Google Doc in order to resolve many of the comments that had been left already. So it might not be the same version that you reviewed a week or two ago. So please take a look when you can; I would like to get this out to NCSG members for their input sooner rather than later. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 18 June 2018 4:01 PM, Rafik Dammak [](mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I would like to defer sharing this for 24 hours, I think there were several edits and we can review again. after that 24 horus passed, we can share the draft to NCSF list. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 22:56, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Are there any objections to sharing this on the NCSG-Discuss list? I presume not as it is just a draft, and not final, but if we share it today we can give members four weeks to look over it and potentially comment, before the PC needs to review the final version. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 12 June 2018 2:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again for the draft. >>>>> as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be tidy-up first before as second round of review or comments. >>>>> after that, we can share it in NCSG list. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 02:33, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I think we could share this with the NCSG list? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel Support Guidelines: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Jun 30 18:17:23 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:17:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> References: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> Message-ID: There should be transparency here. I actually think candidate statements (and especially conflict of interest statements) should be made public. The claim of being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding difficult to understand. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general understanding of, yesterday. > > Martin > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez >> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality >> >> Date: 29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST >> To: epdp-dt at icann.org, Marika Konings >> >> I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. >> >> As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested interest in the results of this PDP? >> >> safe travels to all >> >> --- >> >> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >> +506 8837 7176 >> Aparatado 1571-1000 >> COSTA RICA >> >> El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: >> >>> All >>> >>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >>> >>> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >>> >>> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Donna >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> 100 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 21:35:01 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:35:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP Message-ID: Dear all, I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. Keith Drazek says in the email that: * Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)* I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. Dear Keith, Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? Thanks, Arsene ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >* On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: *> >* Thank you for preparing this, Keith. *> >* I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). *> >* I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. *> >* Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." *> >* In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." *> >* Thank you again for working on this, Keith. *> >* Best wishes, *> >* Ayden F?rdeline *> > >* ??????? Original Message ??????? *>>* On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: *>> >>* Hi all, *>> >> >> >> >>* Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. *>> >> >> >> >>* Please send comments!! *>> >> >> >>* Thanks, *>> >>* Keith* Farzaneh -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Jun 30 21:42:48 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:42:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzi This is on my list of emails to send tonight... I will send another email shortly about this seeming clarification and would appreciate support from other members of the Council if the message is ignored or the answer unsatisfactory. This is very important! Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 20:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > Dear all, > > I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. > > Keith Drazek says in the email that: > > Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion) > > I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. > > Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. > > If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. > > I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. > > I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members > > (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. > > Dear Keith, > > Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? > > If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > >> > > On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline < > [icann at ferdeline.com](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >> wrote: > >> > >> > > Thank you for preparing this, Keith. > >> > >> > > I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). > >> > >> > > I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. > >> > >> > > Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." > >> > >> > > In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." > >> > >> > > Thank you again for working on this, Keith. > >> > >> > > Best wishes, > >> > >> > > Ayden F?rdeline > >> > >> > >> > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > >>> > > On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt < > [epdp-dt at icann.org](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > > Hi all, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Please send comments!! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Thanks, > >>> > >>> > > Keith > > Farzaneh > -- > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 21:50:01 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:50:01 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I also expressed my concern in Panama, we should not play ball so blindly. Of course, I will listen to this group wisdom when it comes to. Mart?n On Sat, Jun 30, 2018, 15:42 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Farzi > > This is on my list of emails to send tonight... > > I will send another email shortly about this seeming clarification and > would appreciate support from other members of the Council if the message > is ignored or the answer unsatisfactory. This is very important! > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 20:35, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Dear all, > > I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members > have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite > clear. > > Keith Drazek says in the email that: > > * Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)* > > I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. > > Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. > > If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. > > > > I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. > > > > I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members > > > > (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Keith, > > Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? > > If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > >* On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > *> >* Thank you for preparing this, Keith. > *> >* I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). > *> >* I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. > *> >* Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." > *> >* In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." > *> >* Thank you again for working on this, Keith. > *> >* Best wishes, > *> >* Ayden F?rdeline > *> > >* ??????? Original Message ??????? > *>>* On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: > *>> >>* Hi all, > *>> >> >> >> >>* Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. > *>> >> >> >> >>* Please send comments!! > *>> >> >> >>* Thanks, > *>> >>* Keith* > > > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat Jun 30 21:51:20 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:51:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: <16D98FAD-2DE9-45B5-976A-D92AD77B871C@gmail.com> References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <16D98FAD-2DE9-45B5-976A-D92AD77B871C@gmail.com> Message-ID: I will be going. Stephanie On 2018-06-29 14:13, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > I will also be going, do you need me to contact Jospeh or do something > else? > > Cheers, > Mart?n > >> On 29 Jun 2018, at 08:31, farzaneh badii > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Who is going to Barcelona? >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Terri Agnew >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a >> timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to >> gnso-secs at icann.org by *Wednesday, 18 >> July 2018.* >> >> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the >> OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for >> confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel >> arrangements. >> >> Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler with a >> designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically >> secured for you*, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is >> un-reimbursable. >> >> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of >> fairness and in light of budget restrictions?we would like you to >> take the following into consideration: >> >> 1.Respond?timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel >> toBarcelona. >> >> 2.If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to >> acquire your visa immediately.?Please contact the ICANN travel team >> to let them know you will need a visa. >> >> 3.Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis >> by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline >> are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as >> their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to >> visa issues. >> >> 4.If possible please book?direct travel requests.?Detours and >> multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >> >> 5.Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. >> >> 6.Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Friday, 19 >> October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >> >> 7.If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their >> own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN >> hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >> >> 8./Privately Booked Reservations/:?ICANN will not refund or take over >> accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a >> replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to >> cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over >> their reservation. >> >> ?Many thanks for your cooperation! >> >> With kind regards, >> >> *Terri * >> >> *????????????---* >> >> *Terri Agnew* >> >> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> *Email:*terri.agnew at icann.org >> >> *Skype ID:*? terri.agnew.icann >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses?and >> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> >> >> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >> >> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: