From farell at benin2point0.org Tue May 1 09:42:19 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 08:42:19 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New public comments draft for review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17900521-1B36-4BE2-A6CE-0A51342C2FC2@benin2point0.org> Morning Rafik & All, I have no objection. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 30 Apr 2018, at 20:37, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > Thanks Rafik, I endorse. > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > Hi all, > > this is a reminder regarding the section 11 of bylaws comment, the deadline for submission is the 5th May. Ayden and Martin already endorsed it. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le sam. 21 avr. 2018 ? 11:59, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : > hi all, > > thanks again for reviewing the last batch of drafts. they were submitted. > As usual, the list of public comments never ends and we got to review some for submission soon: > > Reserve Fund Replenishment Strategy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cfjgDFI7KTPmxS9_KLkIDHvtmoyRvNR6vlLsK-_l-2U/edit?usp=sharing , the deadline is for 25th April. The comment was shared 2 weeks ago in NCSG list and members put some comments that were resolved by Ayden. I do believe it is ready. > Section 11 of ICANN Bylaws change https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gHqOc4xTxttIny1pysvdhOsH_atnm3_8mx0L_aDIC8U/edit?usp=sharing . It was shared recently in NCSG list. It is a short comment supporting the previous position from NCSG as it is the last step in the process. the deadline is the 5th May. > please review the drafts asap. for the first, we need to reach consensus for sending it in coming days. > > 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 Wed May 2 08:44:26 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 05:44:26 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NomCom public comment/ Accountability public comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, We have 2 draft comments to be reviewed. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: farzaneh badii Date: Wed, May 2, 2018, 12:42 AM Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NomCom public comment/ Accountability public comment To: Dear all Please find the two public comments jointly done by Tatiana and I below. NomCom Review Public comment, Please comment soon so that we can send it to PC to be approved: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit Comment on Accountability report can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fOUFHiTEvgafKYUfqWpUlX1QUGM_5jp0Yjdd6j1xvyA/edit?usp=sharing Deadline for submission is 7 May. Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 2 13:26:26 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 06:26:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [council] GAC update In-Reply-To: References: <449ee61e-8c68-79c8-5ee7-a71aa5dc10b1@julf.com> <24b3b68e-c75d-cc11-9dbc-ffc7b86ae0d2@julf.com> <0ad128f4-49c1-af0f-31e9-b0ca27579fed@julf.com> Message-ID: <5a_XTjMtnjiRZvWI-bMRTllyDz69qlJVZF2X0uyfnw9hT59B4kqLI779a8nh-nif3pYX4FjKe9dbjPTacFjK9te3KOpBtSUIOkSP5HADTwg=@ferdeline.com> WOW! ??????? Original Message ??????? On 2 May 2018 12:15 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2018-05-03-en > > A special meeting of the board has now been scheduled: > > Agenda | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board > > 03 May 2018 > > Main Agenda > > - Consideration of GAC Feedback on Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance (8 March 2018) > - GAC Communiqu?, San Juan, PR (15 March 2015) > - Any Other Business > > Published on 30 April 2018 > >> On 2 May 2018, at 06:01, Johan Helsingius wrote: >> >> Michele, >> >>> So how does this impact the Board's ability to take action? >> >> Good question. The way I read >> >> "ICANN?s General Counsel stressed that the triggering of a consultation >> between ICANN Board and GAC is not time-bound. It is required prior to >> the ICANN Board taking action that is inconsistent with GAC Advice. >> Considering the GDPR enforcement timeline, the General Counsel >> indicated that this would have to occur prior to the ICANN Board >> approving a ?temporary specification?, between now and 24 May 2018." >> >> is that the board needs to consult with GAC before introducing >> a "temporary specification", but that it would have to happen >> before May 24. >> >> Julf >> _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed May 2 21:47:07 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 14:47:07 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preliminary comments on WHOIS Review 2 agreements Message-ID: Attached are my preliminary comments on the WHOIS review team 2 initial findings.? This is the rollup of the subgroups work, which we recently discussed in Brussels.? I objected strenuously to one item, that the Board had delivered on its responsibilities re a policy.? I think the EWG was a violation of the MS process, the failure of the RDS was a failure of ICANN as a whole (not the GNSO as Alan G claims) and that the Board initiated interim policy is a fundamental failure of the MS process..... anyway I have asked for more time, which I doubt the Chair will grant.? Volker, who did not attend the meeting, has not had time to go over it.? He is the only contracted party there (there are 3 GAC members) and they have to live with all our recommendations, which I find fundamentally wrong. Let me know if you have comments, I will push to get them added.? They are rushing this through when we are all GDPRing.... cheers Steph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RDS-WHOIS2 - BRU Meeting #2 - Agreements-Action Items-SP comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31674 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 3 12:26:52 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 05:26:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preliminary comments on WHOIS Review 2 agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think you are being too diplomatic in there, Stephanie. Please don't give the RT the option to reject your comments; please insist that your two-pager objecting to Recommendation #2 be included... we cannot let this RT whitewash the situation. Thanks for all that you do, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 2 May 2018 8:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Attached are my preliminary comments on the WHOIS review team 2 initial findings. This is the rollup of the subgroups work, which we recently discussed in Brussels. I objected strenuously to one item, that the Board had delivered on its responsibilities re a policy. I think the EWG was a violation of the MS process, the failure of the RDS was a failure of ICANN as a whole (not the GNSO as Alan G claims) and that the Board initiated interim policy is a fundamental failure of the MS process..... > > anyway I have asked for more time, which I doubt the Chair will grant. Volker, who did not attend the meeting, has not had time to go over it. He is the only contracted party there (there are 3 GAC members) and they have to live with all our recommendations, which I find fundamentally wrong. > > Let me know if you have comments, I will push to get them added. They are rushing this through when we are all GDPRing.... > > cheers Steph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 3 14:34:31 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 07:34:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NomCom public comment/ Accountability public comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik, and thanks to those who drafted these. I have made some suggested edits directly to the Google Docs now. Best, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 2 May 2018 7:44 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > We have 2 draft comments to be reviewed. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: farzaneh badii > Date: Wed, May 2, 2018, 12:42 AM > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NomCom public comment/ Accountability public comment > To: > > Dear all > > Please find the two public comments jointly done by Tatiana and I below. > > NomCom Review Public comment, Please comment soon so that we can send it to PC to be approved: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit > > Comment on Accountability report can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fOUFHiTEvgafKYUfqWpUlX1QUGM_5jp0Yjdd6j1xvyA/edit?usp=sharing > > Deadline for submission is 7 May. > > Best > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu May 3 14:37:50 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 11:37:50 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preliminary comments on WHOIS Review 2 agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, in general and as review teams are different and special beasts compared to other structures where members have more influence in final product versus to community input, I would advice pushing as much as possible. personally, I think EWG was a big mistake from the previous CEO and we are still paying the price. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 3 mai 2018 ? 03:47, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Attached are my preliminary comments on the WHOIS review team 2 initial > findings. This is the rollup of the subgroups work, which we recently > discussed in Brussels. I objected strenuously to one item, that the Board > had delivered on its responsibilities re a policy. I think the EWG was a > violation of the MS process, the failure of the RDS was a failure of ICANN > as a whole (not the GNSO as Alan G claims) and that the Board initiated > interim policy is a fundamental failure of the MS process..... > > anyway I have asked for more time, which I doubt the Chair will grant. > Volker, who did not attend the meeting, has not had time to go over it. He > is the only contracted party there (there are 3 GAC members) and they have > to live with all our recommendations, which I find fundamentally wrong. > > Let me know if you have comments, I will push to get them added. They are > rushing this through when we are all GDPRing.... > > cheers Steph > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC 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 May 3 19:44:42 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 12:44:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preliminary comments on WHOIS Review 2 agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <112ca42a-8f25-ac90-db44-d4ab1827ca8c@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Ayden and Fik, I shall push with renewed vigour :-)? We now have till Friday COB if anyone thinks of specific issues... SP On 2018-05-03 05:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I think you are being too diplomatic in there, Stephanie. > > Please don't give the RT the option to reject your comments; please > insist that your two-pager objecting to Recommendation #2 be > included... we cannot let this RT whitewash the situation. > > Thanks for all that you do, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 2 May 2018 8:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: > >> Attached are my preliminary comments on the WHOIS review team 2 >> initial findings.? This is the rollup of the subgroups work, which we >> recently discussed in Brussels.? I objected strenuously to one item, >> that the Board had delivered on its responsibilities re a policy.? I >> think the EWG was a violation of the MS process, the failure of the >> RDS was a failure of ICANN as a whole (not the GNSO as Alan G claims) >> and that the Board initiated interim policy is a fundamental failure >> of the MS process..... >> >> anyway I have asked for more time, which I doubt the Chair will >> grant.? Volker, who did not attend the meeting, has not had time to >> go over it.? He is the only contracted party there (there are 3 GAC >> members) and they have to live with all our recommendations, which I >> find fundamentally wrong. >> >> Let me know if you have comments, I will push to get them added.? >> They are rushing this through when we are all GDPRing.... >> >> cheers Steph >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Thu May 3 19:54:07 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 16:54:07 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preliminary comments on WHOIS Review 2 agreements In-Reply-To: <112ca42a-8f25-ac90-db44-d4ab1827ca8c@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <112ca42a-8f25-ac90-db44-d4ab1827ca8c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Stephanie, Much appreciated on the work done on this so far +1 Kind Regards Poncelet On 3 May 2018 at 16:44, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Thanks Ayden and Fik, I shall push with renewed vigour :-) We now have > till Friday COB if anyone thinks of specific issues... > > SP > On 2018-05-03 05:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I think you are being too diplomatic in there, Stephanie. > > Please don't give the RT the option to reject your comments; please insist > that your two-pager objecting to Recommendation #2 be included... we cannot > let this RT whitewash the situation. > > Thanks for all that you do, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 2 May 2018 8:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca> wrote: > > Attached are my preliminary comments on the WHOIS review team 2 initial > findings. This is the rollup of the subgroups work, which we recently > discussed in Brussels. I objected strenuously to one item, that the Board > had delivered on its responsibilities re a policy. I think the EWG was a > violation of the MS process, the failure of the RDS was a failure of ICANN > as a whole (not the GNSO as Alan G claims) and that the Board initiated > interim policy is a fundamental failure of the MS process..... > > anyway I have asked for more time, which I doubt the Chair will grant. > Volker, who did not attend the meeting, has not had time to go over it. He > is the only contracted party there (there are 3 GAC members) and they have > to live with all our recommendations, which I find fundamentally wrong. > > Let me know if you have comments, I will push to get them added. They are > rushing this through when we are all GDPRing.... > > cheers Steph > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 3 20:02:19 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 13:02:19 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preliminary comments on WHOIS Review 2 agreements In-Reply-To: References: <112ca42a-8f25-ac90-db44-d4ab1827ca8c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <0db78ae2-eded-dd47-4d9b-8c04a29ca281@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Poncelet! SP On 2018-05-03 12:54, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Thanks Stephanie, > > Much appreciated on the work done on this so far +1 > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 3 May 2018 at 16:44, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > Thanks Ayden and Fik, I shall push with renewed vigour :-)? We now > have till Friday COB if anyone thinks of specific issues... > > SP > > On 2018-05-03 05:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> I think you are being too diplomatic in there, Stephanie. >> >> Please don't give the RT the option to reject your comments; >> please insist that your two-pager objecting to Recommendation #2 >> be included... we cannot let this RT whitewash the situation. >> >> Thanks for all that you do, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 2 May 2018 8:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin >> >> wrote: >> >>> Attached are my preliminary comments on the WHOIS review team 2 >>> initial findings.? This is the rollup of the subgroups work, >>> which we recently discussed in Brussels.? I objected strenuously >>> to one item, that the Board had delivered on its >>> responsibilities re a policy.? I think the EWG was a violation >>> of the MS process, the failure of the RDS was a failure of ICANN >>> as a whole (not the GNSO as Alan G claims) and that the Board >>> initiated interim policy is a fundamental failure of the MS >>> process..... >>> >>> anyway I have asked for more time, which I doubt the Chair will >>> grant.? Volker, who did not attend the meeting, has not had time >>> to go over it.? He is the only contracted party there (there are >>> 3 GAC members) and they have to live with all our >>> recommendations, which I find fundamentally wrong. >>> >>> Let me know if you have comments, I will push to get them >>> added.? They are rushing this through when we are all GDPRing.... >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > * > * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu May 3 20:09:56 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 14:09:56 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Preliminary comments on WHOIS Review 2 agreements In-Reply-To: <0db78ae2-eded-dd47-4d9b-8c04a29ca281@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <112ca42a-8f25-ac90-db44-d4ab1827ca8c@mail.utoronto.ca> <0db78ae2-eded-dd47-4d9b-8c04a29ca281@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <9C4385D6-781D-41BA-AA9A-B0540F02A441@gmail.com> As I stated before, regarding this issue, you are still my compass in the fog Steph, so onwards! Martin > On 3 May 2018, at 14:02, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Thanks Poncelet! > > SP > On 2018-05-03 12:54, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: >> Thanks Stephanie, >> >> Much appreciated on the work done on this so far +1 >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 3 May 2018 at 16:44, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: >> Thanks Ayden and Fik, I shall push with renewed vigour :-) We now have till Friday COB if anyone thinks of specific issues... >> >> SP >> On 2018-05-03 05:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> I think you are being too diplomatic in there, Stephanie. >>> >>> Please don't give the RT the option to reject your comments; please insist that your two-pager objecting to Recommendation #2 be included... we cannot let this RT whitewash the situation. >>> >>> Thanks for all that you do, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 2 May 2018 8:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>>> Attached are my preliminary comments on the WHOIS review team 2 initial findings. This is the rollup of the subgroups work, which we recently discussed in Brussels. I objected strenuously to one item, that the Board had delivered on its responsibilities re a policy. I think the EWG was a violation of the MS process, the failure of the RDS was a failure of ICANN as a whole (not the GNSO as Alan G claims) and that the Board initiated interim policy is a fundamental failure of the MS process..... >>>> anyway I have asked for more time, which I doubt the Chair will grant. Volker, who did not attend the meeting, has not had time to go over it. He is the only contracted party there (there are 3 GAC members) and they have to live with all our recommendations, which I find fundamentally wrong. >>>> Let me know if you have comments, I will push to get them added. They are rushing this through when we are all GDPRing.... >>>> cheers Steph >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 4 10:15:04 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 07:15:04 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New public comments draft for review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, the deadline for submitting the section 11 of bylaws comments is tomorrow. I see that Farzaneh and Farell also endorse the comment. if there no objection in coming hours, I will submit the attached draft. Best, Rafik Le mar. 1 mai 2018 ? 03:28, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > this is a reminder regarding the section 11 of bylaws comment, the > deadline for submission is the 5th May. Ayden and Martin already endorsed > it. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le sam. 21 avr. 2018 ? 11:59, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> hi all, >> >> thanks again for reviewing the last batch of drafts. they were submitted. >> As usual, the list of public comments never ends and we got to review >> some for submission soon: >> >> >> - Reserve Fund Replenishment Strategy: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cfjgDFI7KTPmxS9_KLkIDHvtmoyRvNR6vlLsK-_l-2U/edit?usp=sharing >> , the deadline is for *25th April*. The comment was shared 2 weeks >> ago in NCSG list and members put some comments that were resolved by Ayden. >> I do believe it is ready. >> - Section 11 of ICANN Bylaws change >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gHqOc4xTxttIny1pysvdhOsH_atnm3_8mx0L_aDIC8U/edit?usp=sharing >> . It was shared recently in NCSG list. It is a short comment supporting the >> previous position from NCSG as it is the last step in the process. the >> deadline is the *5th May*. >> >> please review the drafts asap. for the first, we need to reach consensus >> for sending it in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Comment on GNSO Council and ICANN bylaw changes.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 83948 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 4 13:05:29 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 06:05:29 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New public comments draft for review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks ever so much for keeping on top of this, Rafik. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 4 May 2018 9:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > the deadline for submitting the section 11 of bylaws comments is tomorrow. I see that Farzaneh and Farell also endorse the comment. if there no objection in coming hours, I will submit the attached draft. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 1 mai 2018 ? 03:28, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> this is a reminder regarding the section 11 of bylaws comment, the deadline for submission is the 5th May. Ayden and Martin already endorsed it. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le sam. 21 avr. 2018 ? 11:59, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> thanks again for reviewing the last batch of drafts. they were submitted. >>> As usual, the list of public comments never ends and we got to review some for submission soon: >>> >>> - Reserve Fund Replenishment Strategy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cfjgDFI7KTPmxS9_KLkIDHvtmoyRvNR6vlLsK-_l-2U/edit?usp=sharing , the deadline is for 25th April. The comment was shared 2 weeks ago in NCSG list and members put some comments that were resolved by Ayden. I do believe it is ready. >>> - Section 11 of ICANN Bylaws change https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gHqOc4xTxttIny1pysvdhOsH_atnm3_8mx0L_aDIC8U/edit?usp=sharing . It was shared recently in NCSG list. It is a short comment supporting the previous position from NCSG as it is the last step in the process. the deadline is the 5th May. >>> >>> please review the drafts asap. for the first, we need to reach consensus for sending it in coming days. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Fri May 4 23:20:09 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 17:20:09 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New public comments draft for review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29F4494E-61BB-486D-9E87-81B046CA93A6@gmail.com> Same here, I support it. Martin > On 4 May 2018, at 07:05, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks ever so much for keeping on top of this, Rafik. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 4 May 2018 9:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> >> Hi all, >> >> the deadline for submitting the section 11 of bylaws comments is tomorrow. I see that Farzaneh and Farell also endorse the comment. if there no objection in coming hours, I will submit the attached draft. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 1 mai 2018 ? 03:28, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : >> Hi all, >> >> this is a reminder regarding the section 11 of bylaws comment, the deadline for submission is the 5th May. Ayden and Martin already endorsed it. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le sam. 21 avr. 2018 ? 11:59, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : >> hi all, >> >> thanks again for reviewing the last batch of drafts. they were submitted. >> As usual, the list of public comments never ends and we got to review some for submission soon: >> >> Reserve Fund Replenishment Strategy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cfjgDFI7KTPmxS9_KLkIDHvtmoyRvNR6vlLsK-_l-2U/edit?usp=sharing , the deadline is for 25th April. The comment was shared 2 weeks ago in NCSG list and members put some comments that were resolved by Ayden. I do believe it is ready. >> Section 11 of ICANN Bylaws change https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gHqOc4xTxttIny1pysvdhOsH_atnm3_8mx0L_aDIC8U/edit?usp=sharing . It was shared recently in NCSG list. It is a short comment supporting the previous position from NCSG as it is the last step in the process. the deadline is the 5th May. >> please review the drafts asap. for the first, we need to reach consensus for sending it in coming days. >> >> 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 Sat May 5 01:07:35 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:07:35 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom Message-ID: I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so that we can finalize. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 5 01:17:47 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 22:17:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh, Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The deadline for submission is the 7th May. Edits and comments from members were resolved. Rafik On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so that we can > finalize. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit > > > > 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 Sat May 5 01:21:20 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:21:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh this one is different Rafik, this one is the guidance to NomCom for the qualities of the board memember. But I'd be grateful if you also look over the guidance doc quickly so that we send it off. But thanks for reminding me. I have resolved all the comments on both accountability and NomCom review. NomCom review public comment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PZPz-oevLrFvxsvpAJuQHPc-R0nDhCr-vbbvOyh_ZpQ/edit Farzaneh On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Farzaneh, > Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The deadline for > submission is the 7th May. Edits and comments from members were resolved. > > Rafik > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so that we can >> finalize. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9 >> Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit >> >> >> >> 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 Sat May 5 01:23:11 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:23:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry ... what am I doing ... blame it on Friday ... here is the comment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit Disregard the previous one . Farzaneh On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Oh this one is different Rafik, this one is the guidance to NomCom for the > qualities of the board memember. But I'd be grateful if you also look over > the guidance doc quickly so that we send it off. > > But thanks for reminding me. I have resolved all the comments on both > accountability and NomCom review. > > NomCom review public comment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PZPz- > oevLrFvxsvpAJuQHPc-R0nDhCr-vbbvOyh_ZpQ/edit > > > > Farzaneh > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Thanks Farzaneh, >> Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The deadline for >> submission is the 7th May. Edits and comments from members were resolved. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so that we can >>> finalize. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2eg >>> EnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 Sat May 5 01:24:54 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:24:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on Accountability Message-ID: Here is the comment on accountability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fOUFHiTEvgafKYUfqWpUlX1QUGM_5jp0Yjdd6j1xvyA/edit As Rafik said the deadline is 7 May. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 5 01:28:15 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:28:15 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just commented on the earlier one.? Largely grammatical, but I hope it is not too late.... cheers STeph On 2018-05-04 18:23, farzaneh badii wrote: > Sorry ... what am I doing ... blame it on Friday ... here is the > comment: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit > > > Disregard the previous one . > > Farzaneh > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, farzaneh badii > > wrote: > > Oh this one is different Rafik, this one is the guidance to NomCom > for the qualities of the board memember. But I'd be grateful if > you also look over the guidance doc quickly so that we send it off. > > But thanks for reminding me. I have resolved all the comments on > both accountability and NomCom review. > > NomCom review public comment: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PZPz-oevLrFvxsvpAJuQHPc-R0nDhCr-vbbvOyh_ZpQ/edit > > > > > Farzaneh > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > Thanks Farzaneh, > Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The deadline > for submission is the 7th May. Edits and comments from members > were resolved. > > Rafik > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii > > > wrote: > > I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so > that we can finalize. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit > > > > > 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 Sat May 5 01:35:22 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:35:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Stephanie Please also comment on this one: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_ cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit Farzaneh On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > I just commented on the earlier one. Largely grammatical, but I hope it > is not too late.... > > cheers STeph > On 2018-05-04 18:23, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Sorry ... what am I doing ... blame it on Friday ... here is the comment: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_ > cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit > > Disregard the previous one . > > Farzaneh > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Oh this one is different Rafik, this one is the guidance to NomCom for >> the qualities of the board memember. But I'd be grateful if you also look >> over the guidance doc quickly so that we send it off. >> >> But thanks for reminding me. I have resolved all the comments on both >> accountability and NomCom review. >> >> NomCom review public comment: https://docs.google.c >> om/document/d/1PZPz-oevLrFvxsvpAJuQHPc-R0nDhCr-vbbvOyh_ZpQ/edit >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Farzaneh, >>> Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The deadline for >>> submission is the 7th May. Edits and comments from members were resolved. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so that we can >>>> finalize. >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2eg >>>> EnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 icann at ferdeline.com Sat May 5 16:53:29 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 09:53:29 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I've chimed in now with some suggested edits. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 5 May 2018 12:07 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so that we can finalize. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t.tropina at mpicc.de Sun May 6 00:46:27 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 23:46:27 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik and thanks Farz. I reviewed the comment and I can endorse it :) while I was helping Farz to draft this, the document definitely benefited from further comments and corrections - thanks to all on the PC who weighed in. Cheers, Tanya On 05/05/18 00:17, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Farzaneh, > Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The deadline for > submission is the 7th May. Edits and comments from members were resolved.? > > Rafik? > > > On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii > wrote: > > I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so that we > can finalize.? > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit > > > > 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 kathy at kathykleiman.com Sun May 6 20:27:01 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 13:27:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, my edits added. I changed to "should" to "must" in many areas of the text (not the titles/subtitles) because "should" is sometimes interpreted as "may" instead of "must." What you have identified is critical and not optional - a must, not a may. Tx you! Best, Kathy On 5/4/2018 6:35 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Thanks Stephanie > > Please also comment on this one: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit > > > > > Farzaneh > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > I just commented on the earlier one.? Largely grammatical, but I > hope it is not too late.... > > cheers STeph > > On 2018-05-04 18:23, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Sorry ... what am I doing ... blame it on Friday ... here is the >> comment: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit >> >> >> >> Disregard the previous one . >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >> >> Oh this one is different Rafik, this one is the guidance to >> NomCom for the qualities of the board memember. But I'd be >> grateful if you also look over the guidance doc quickly so >> that we send it off. >> >> But thanks for reminding me. I have resolved all the comments >> on both accountability and NomCom review. >> >> NomCom review public comment: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PZPz-oevLrFvxsvpAJuQHPc-R0nDhCr-vbbvOyh_ZpQ/edit >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >> >> Thanks Farzaneh, >> Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The >> deadline for submission is the 7th May. Edits and >> comments from members were resolved. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii >> > > wrote: >> >> I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please >> comment so that we can finalize. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit >> >> >> >> >> 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 t.tropina at mpicc.de Sun May 6 22:16:07 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 21:16:07 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on Accountability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Okay, I resolved the page numbering issue (thanks to @Ayden for pointing this out) and inserted the link to our comments to the Ombuds group report. I support the submission of the comment as it is now. Cheers, Tanya On 05/05/18 00:24, farzaneh badii wrote: > Here is the comment on > accountability:?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fOUFHiTEvgafKYUfqWpUlX1QUGM_5jp0Yjdd6j1xvyA/edit > > > As Rafik said the deadline?is 7 May.? > > > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon May 7 00:09:52 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 17:09:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Done.? I think it looks good overall, caught I few things. cheers SP On 2018-05-04 18:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > Thanks Stephanie > > Please also comment on this one: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit > > > > > Farzaneh > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > I just commented on the earlier one.? Largely grammatical, but I > hope it is not too late.... > > cheers STeph > > On 2018-05-04 18:23, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Sorry ... what am I doing ... blame it on Friday ... here is the >> comment: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit >> >> >> >> Disregard the previous one . >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >> >> Oh this one is different Rafik, this one is the guidance to >> NomCom for the qualities of the board memember. But I'd be >> grateful if you also look over the guidance doc quickly so >> that we send it off. >> >> But thanks for reminding me. I have resolved all the comments >> on both accountability and NomCom review. >> >> NomCom review public comment: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PZPz-oevLrFvxsvpAJuQHPc-R0nDhCr-vbbvOyh_ZpQ/edit >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >> >> Thanks Farzaneh, >> Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The >> deadline for submission is the 7th May. Edits and >> comments from members were resolved. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii >> > > wrote: >> >> I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please >> comment so that we can finalize. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit >> >> >> >> >> 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 Mon May 7 01:41:32 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 22:41:32 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG guidelines to NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I am fine with NCSG guidance for nomcom and supporting the NCSG comment on the nomcom2 review. the deadline for submission is Monday 7th May. Best, Rafik Le lun. 7 mai 2018 ? 06:10, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Done. I think it looks good overall, caught I few things. > > cheers SP > On 2018-05-04 18:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Thanks Stephanie > > Please also comment on this one: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit > > > > Farzaneh > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> I just commented on the earlier one. Largely grammatical, but I hope it >> is not too late.... >> >> cheers STeph >> On 2018-05-04 18:23, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Sorry ... what am I doing ... blame it on Friday ... here is the comment: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lBL_xRnYeIzQYXjK4nw0P8b7_cEOOuZVNouzdp3uvgU/edit >> >> >> Disregard the previous one . >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> Oh this one is different Rafik, this one is the guidance to NomCom for >>> the qualities of the board memember. But I'd be grateful if you also look >>> over the guidance doc quickly so that we send it off. >>> >>> But thanks for reminding me. I have resolved all the comments on both >>> accountability and NomCom review. >>> >>> NomCom review public comment: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PZPz-oevLrFvxsvpAJuQHPc-R0nDhCr-vbbvOyh_ZpQ/edit >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Farzaneh, >>>> Request to PC members to review the comment asap. The deadline for >>>> submission is the 7th May. Edits and comments from members were resolved. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018, 11:08 PM farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I want to send this off to NomCom soon. Please comment so that we can >>>>> finalize. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VqEipis7YW3L1Ps4WfKZD2egEnoJ9Cf1zUK56Ep4rMM/edit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon May 7 14:44:21 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 11:44:21 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on Accountability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fully Supported also +1 Kind Regards Poncelet On 6 May 2018 at 19:16, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Okay, I resolved the page numbering issue (thanks to @Ayden for pointing > this out) and inserted the link to our comments to the Ombuds group report. > > I support the submission of the comment as it is now. > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > On 05/05/18 00:24, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Here is the comment on accountability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 1fOUFHiTEvgafKYUfqWpUlX1QUGM_5jp0Yjdd6j1xvyA/edit > > > As Rafik said the deadline is 7 May. > > > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon May 7 18:22:30 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 11:22:30 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Final NomCom Message-ID: Here is the final NomCom public comment. Note that I did not include all of Raoul's recommendations nor Brenden's. Raoul's recommendation involves other SGs and we have not discussed it with them. When they want to discuss representation on NomCom we can add his recommendation. Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Final Report of the NomCom2 Review - NCSG Comment (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 178927 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon May 7 19:36:05 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 16:36:05 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Final NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noted Farzaneh, Thanks for sharing the final NonCom Public comment by NCSG +1. Kind Regards Poncelet On 7 May 2018 at 15:22, farzaneh badii wrote: > Here is the final NomCom public comment. > > Note that I did not include all of Raoul's recommendations nor Brenden's. > > Raoul's recommendation involves other SGs and we have not discussed it > with them. When they want to discuss representation on NomCom we can add > his recommendation. > > > Best > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon May 7 20:32:57 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 13:32:57 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Final NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ponce Please forgive me, Brenden added a bit after I submitted this which I think we can keep. attached is the modified one. Here it is *Recommendation 7: NomCom members, except for leadership positions, should serve two-year terms, but be limited to a maximum of two terms. The NCSG does not object to this recommendation. However, there may be some risk that a group of interested parties could gain undue long-term influence in the Nomcom by colluding in some manner. That risk should be taken into consideration if Nomcom member term lengths and limits are revised. Moreover, the perceived problem that extending terms is to remedy is that Nomcom members do not really get "up to speed" until the second year. Because of this, they are unable to leverage that experience. However, as we noted earlier in our comment, an alternative solution is to improve the situation by codifying operational rules, e.g., around decision making processes, making it easier for new members (and frankly, the broader community) to clearly understand how the Nomcom works in advance of serving. * Farzaneh On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Noted Farzaneh, > > Thanks for sharing the final NonCom Public comment by NCSG +1. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 7 May 2018 at 15:22, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> Here is the final NomCom public comment. >> >> Note that I did not include all of Raoul's recommendations nor Brenden's. >> >> Raoul's recommendation involves other SGs and we have not discussed it >> with them. When they want to discuss representation on NomCom we can add >> his recommendation. >> >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Final Report of the NomCom2 Review - NCSG Comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 179914 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Mon May 7 22:11:02 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 21:11:02 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Final NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Sorry for stepping into too late. However, it seems like I can not edit or add a comment. After going through all the mail threads, I realised that most have been said. I don?t really have substantial input apart to delete everywhere where it is written: ?We support this recommendation? and put a final note ?We support all other recommendations?, doing so to avoid repetition. Thanks. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 7 May 2018, at 19:32, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Thanks Ponce > > Please forgive me, Brenden added a bit after I submitted this which I think we can keep. attached is the modified one. > > Here it is > > > Recommendation 7: NomCom members, except for leadership positions, should serve two-year terms, but be limited to a maximum of two terms. > > The NCSG does not object to this recommendation. However, there may be some risk that a group of interested parties could gain undue long-term influence in the Nomcom by colluding in some manner. That risk should be taken into consideration if Nomcom member term lengths and limits are revised. Moreover, the perceived problem that extending terms is to remedy is that Nomcom members do not really get "up to speed" until the second year. Because of this, they are unable to leverage that experience. However, as we noted earlier in our comment, an alternative solution is to improve the situation by codifying operational rules, e.g., around decision making processes, making it easier for new members (and frankly, the broader community) to clearly understand how the Nomcom works in advance of serving. > > > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Poncelet Ileleji > wrote: > Noted Farzaneh, > > Thanks for sharing the final NonCom Public comment by NCSG +1. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 7 May 2018 at 15:22, farzaneh badii > wrote: > Here is the final NomCom public comment. > > Note that I did not include all of Raoul's recommendations nor Brenden's. > > Raoul's recommendation involves other SGs and we have not discussed it with them. When they want to discuss representation on NomCom we can add his recommendation. > > > Best > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > www.ymca.gm > http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC 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 May 8 00:25:57 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 21:25:57 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Final NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Farzaneh, seeing no strong objection here or from membership, the comment can be interpreted as endorsed. I will submit the latest version you sent here. Best, Rafik Le mar. 8 mai 2018 ? 02:33, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Thanks Ponce > > Please forgive me, Brenden added a bit after I submitted this which I > think we can keep. attached is the modified one. > > Here it is > > > > *Recommendation 7: NomCom members, except for leadership positions, should > serve two-year terms, but be limited to a maximum of two terms. The NCSG > does not object to this recommendation. However, there may be some risk > that a group of interested parties could gain undue long-term influence in > the Nomcom by colluding in some manner. That risk should be taken into > consideration if Nomcom member term lengths and limits are revised. > Moreover, the perceived problem that extending terms is to remedy is that > Nomcom members do not really get "up to speed" until the second year. > Because of this, they are unable to leverage that experience. However, as > we noted earlier in our comment, an alternative solution is to improve the > situation by codifying operational rules, e.g., around decision making > processes, making it easier for new members (and frankly, the broader > community) to clearly understand how the Nomcom works in advance of > serving. * > > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Poncelet Ileleji > wrote: > >> Noted Farzaneh, >> >> Thanks for sharing the final NonCom Public comment by NCSG +1. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 7 May 2018 at 15:22, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Here is the final NomCom public comment. >>> >>> Note that I did not include all of Raoul's recommendations nor Brenden's. >>> >>> Raoul's recommendation involves other SGs and we have not discussed it >>> with them. When they want to discuss representation on NomCom we can add >>> his recommendation. >>> >>> >>> Best >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC 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 May 10 07:32:09 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:32:09 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on Accountability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, sending a reminder to review the comment on CCWG final report. the deadline for submission is the 11th May. Best, Rafik Le lun. 7 mai 2018 ? 20:44, Poncelet Ileleji a ?crit : > Fully Supported also +1 > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 6 May 2018 at 19:16, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > >> Okay, I resolved the page numbering issue (thanks to @Ayden for pointing >> this out) and inserted the link to our comments to the Ombuds group report. >> >> I support the submission of the comment as it is now. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tanya >> >> On 05/05/18 00:24, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Here is the comment on accountability: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fOUFHiTEvgafKYUfqWpUlX1QUGM_5jp0Yjdd6j1xvyA/edit >> >> >> As Rafik said the deadline is 7 May. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 11 13:10:09 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 06:10:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review Message-ID: Hi all, As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations seem to have been ignored: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if she can please resolve them. That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a thought... Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri May 11 17:48:32 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 10:48:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on Accountability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Final version in PDF attached. All the issues are resolved and have not received any other comments in the past days. Farzaneh On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > sending a reminder to review the comment on CCWG final report. the > deadline for submission is the 11th May. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 7 mai 2018 ? 20:44, Poncelet Ileleji a ?crit : > >> Fully Supported also +1 >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 6 May 2018 at 19:16, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> >>> Okay, I resolved the page numbering issue (thanks to @Ayden for pointing >>> this out) and inserted the link to our comments to the Ombuds group report. >>> >>> I support the submission of the comment as it is now. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Tanya >>> >>> On 05/05/18 00:24, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>> Here is the comment on accountability: https://docs. >>> google.com/document/d/1fOUFHiTEvgafKYUfqWpUlX1QUGM_5jp0Yjdd6j1xvyA/edit >>> >>> >>> As Rafik said the deadline is 7 May. >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC 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: CCWG-Accountability WS2 Final Report - NCSG Comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 92370 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 11 18:11:42 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 00:11:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on Accountability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh, if there is no strong objection in the coming hours I will submit the comment by the deadline. Best, Rafik Le ven. 11 mai 2018 ? 23:49, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Final version in PDF attached. All the issues are resolved and have not > received any other comments in the past days. > > Farzaneh > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> sending a reminder to review the comment on CCWG final report. the >> deadline for submission is the 11th May. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le lun. 7 mai 2018 ? 20:44, Poncelet Ileleji a ?crit : >> >>> Fully Supported also +1 >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> Poncelet >>> >>> On 6 May 2018 at 19:16, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> >>>> Okay, I resolved the page numbering issue (thanks to @Ayden for >>>> pointing this out) and inserted the link to our comments to the Ombuds >>>> group report. >>>> >>>> I support the submission of the comment as it is now. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> On 05/05/18 00:24, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>> Here is the comment on accountability: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fOUFHiTEvgafKYUfqWpUlX1QUGM_5jp0Yjdd6j1xvyA/edit >>>> >>>> >>>> As Rafik said the deadline is 7 May. >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>> Coordinator >>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>> The Gambia, West Africa >>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>> Skype: pons_utd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >>> www.waigf.org >>> www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org >>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >>> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC 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 May 12 00:30:08 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 17:30:08 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> References: <9A74C7EA-2367-4C4E-8D74-9A571278D94F@icann.org> Message-ID: 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](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: GNSO PDP 3.0 - 8 May 2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 692229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 12 00:33:40 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 17:33:40 -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: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 12 00:37:43 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 17:37:43 -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: also better respond to this https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marks-metalitz-to-atallah-namazi-10may18-en.pdf SP On 2018-05-11 17:33, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 12 00:52:50 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 06:52:50 +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, 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 Sat May 12 11:55:50 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 04:55:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Accred-Model] Fwd: THREAT SEVERITY:HIGH / TIME-SENSITIVE / TEMPORARY POLICY RE GDPR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Should we respond to this letter? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 12 May 2018 10:51 AM, jonathan m wrote: > Jonathan Matkowsky > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: jonathan m > Date: Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:50 AM > Subject: THREAT SEVERITY:HIGH / TIME-SENSITIVE / TEMPORARY POLICY RE GDPR > To: goran.marby at icann.org, cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org > Cc: gdpr at icann.org > > Please see attached. Please publish at your earliest convenience on the correspondence page. > > Jonathan Matkowsky > > *******************************************************************This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. > > ******************************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ltr ICANN Board from RiskIQ May 11.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 237275 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat May 12 11:58:33 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 04:58:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! -- Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi all, > > As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations seem to have been ignored: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf > > I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing > > I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if she can please resolve them. > > That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a thought... > > Best wishes, > > Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun May 13 04:36:23 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 21:36:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN's draft interim model for GDPR compliance Message-ID: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> Here is the first draft of an NCSG comment on the 32 page interim model tabled today.? It is not finished, we need to also deal with the appendices (such as they are) but it is probably better to send it immediately as the Board is meeting on it tomorrow morning and they have received many letters already apparently. Many Thanks to Ayden for his reformatting and highlighting job, it reads better. Stephanie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: proposed-gtld-registration-data-temp-specs-11may18-ensp comments. - AF edits2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 141832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Sun May 13 07:14:02 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 00:14:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN's draft interim model for GDPR compliance In-Reply-To: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I strongly support the submission of this comment Sunday AM (before the Board meeting). I thank Stephanie for stopping her weekend to write such a detailed response for this fast moving proposal, and Ayden for editing. Best, Kathy On 5/12/2018 9:36 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Here is the first draft of an NCSG comment on the 32 page interim > model tabled today.? It is not finished, we need to also deal with the > appendices (such as they are) but it is probably better to send it > immediately as the Board is meeting on it tomorrow morning and they > have received many letters already apparently. > > Many Thanks to Ayden for his reformatting and highlighting job, it > reads better. > > Stephanie > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun May 13 15:39:19 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 21:39:19 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN's draft interim model for GDPR compliance In-Reply-To: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for this, as the board is going to make a decision on this Sunday regarding the tempory specification, we have to get this sent shortly to be able to influence their decision. it is not optimal and quite unfortunate that the proposal was just published on Friday. Best, Rafik Le dim. 13 mai 2018 ? 10:35, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Here is the first draft of an NCSG comment on the 32 page interim model > tabled today. It is not finished, we need to also deal with the appendices > (such as they are) but it is probably better to send it immediately as the > Board is meeting on it tomorrow morning and they have received many letters > already apparently. > > Many Thanks to Ayden for his reformatting and highlighting job, it reads > better. > > Stephanie > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun May 13 17:09:45 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 10:09:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN's draft interim model for GDPR compliance In-Reply-To: References: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <6a054257-f7ea-3ec5-68c5-f3aa29b970ae@mail.utoronto.ca> Exactly, can you just send it please?? i have not had time to finish it, you could tell them in the transmittal email that we are still working on the appendices (so are they by the way, a lot of the important things are missing. I have to play the organ in church today, gave the regular organist mothers day off....gotta run cheers Steph On 2018-05-13 08:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > Thanks for this, > as the board is going to make a decision?on this Sunday regarding the > tempory specification, we have to get this sent shortly to be able to > influence their decision. > it is not optimal and quite unfortunate that the proposal was just > published on Friday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?dim. 13 mai 2018 ??10:35, Stephanie Perrin > > a ?crit?: > > Here is the first draft of an NCSG comment on the 32 page interim > model tabled today.? It is not finished, we need to also deal with > the appendices (such as they are) but it is probably better to > send it immediately as the Board is meeting on it tomorrow morning > and they have received many letters already apparently. > > Many Thanks to Ayden for his reformatting and highlighting job, it > reads better. > > Stephanie > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun May 13 18:58:49 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 11:58:49 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN's draft interim model for GDPR compliance In-Reply-To: <6a054257-f7ea-3ec5-68c5-f3aa29b970ae@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> <6a054257-f7ea-3ec5-68c5-f3aa29b970ae@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I sent it an hour ago On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:09 AM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Exactly, can you just send it please? i have not had time to finish it, > you could tell them in the transmittal email that we are still working on > the appendices (so are they by the way, a lot of the important things are > missing. > > I have to play the organ in church today, gave the regular organist > mothers day off....gotta run > > cheers Steph > On 2018-05-13 08:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > Thanks for this, > as the board is going to make a decision on this Sunday regarding the > tempory specification, we have to get this sent shortly to be able to > influence their decision. > it is not optimal and quite unfortunate that the proposal was just > published on Friday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 13 mai 2018 ? 10:35, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > >> Here is the first draft of an NCSG comment on the 32 page interim model >> tabled today. It is not finished, we need to also deal with the appendices >> (such as they are) but it is probably better to send it immediately as the >> Board is meeting on it tomorrow morning and they have received many letters >> already apparently. >> >> Many Thanks to Ayden for his reformatting and highlighting job, it reads >> better. >> >> Stephanie >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun May 13 19:05:28 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 12:05:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN's draft interim model for GDPR compliance In-Reply-To: References: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> <6a054257-f7ea-3ec5-68c5-f3aa29b970ae@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Farzi -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 13 May 2018 3:58 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > I sent it an hour ago > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:09 AM Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> Exactly, can you just send it please? i have not had time to finish it, you could tell them in the transmittal email that we are still working on the appendices (so are they by the way, a lot of the important things are missing. >> >> I have to play the organ in church today, gave the regular organist mothers day off....gotta run >> >> cheers Steph >> >> On 2018-05-13 08:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> Thanks for this, >>> as the board is going to make a decision on this Sunday regarding the tempory specification, we have to get this sent shortly to be able to influence their decision. >>> it is not optimal and quite unfortunate that the proposal was just published on Friday. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 13 mai 2018 ? 10:35, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >>> >>>> Here is the first draft of an NCSG comment on the 32 page interim model tabled today. It is not finished, we need to also deal with the appendices (such as they are) but it is probably better to send it immediately as the Board is meeting on it tomorrow morning and they have received many letters already apparently. >>>> >>>> Many Thanks to Ayden for his reformatting and highlighting job, it reads better. >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon May 14 03:31:57 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 20:31:57 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN's draft interim model for GDPR compliance In-Reply-To: References: <551ea562-7b97-06d4-2a4e-cb9a0b2ab611@mail.utoronto.ca> <6a054257-f7ea-3ec5-68c5-f3aa29b970ae@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <8ff28072-b45a-c923-d010-a1e0ff37ed13@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks so much! Trying to finish tonight. Cheers STeph On 2018-05-13 11:58, farzaneh badii wrote: > I sent it an hour ago > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:09 AM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > Exactly, can you just send it please?? i have not had time to > finish it, you could tell them in the transmittal email that we > are still working on the appendices (so are they by the way, a lot > of the important things are missing. > > I have to play the organ in church today, gave the regular > organist mothers day off....gotta run > > cheers Steph > > On 2018-05-13 08:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> Thanks for this, >> as the board is going to make a decision?on this Sunday regarding >> the tempory specification, we have to get this sent shortly to be >> able to influence their decision. >> it is not optimal and quite unfortunate that the proposal was >> just published on Friday. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?dim. 13 mai 2018 ??10:35, Stephanie Perrin >> > > a ?crit?: >> >> Here is the first draft of an NCSG comment on the 32 page >> interim model tabled today. It is not finished, we need to >> also deal with the appendices (such as they are) but it is >> probably better to send it immediately as the Board is >> meeting on it tomorrow morning and they have received many >> letters already apparently. >> >> Many Thanks to Ayden for his reformatting and highlighting >> job, it reads better. >> >> Stephanie >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 15 02:59:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 08:59:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> References: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, it doesn't seem that board covered this during its meeting and so we got some time. happy with Farzaneh doing the editing during this week, it also gives us time to consult membership regarding the letter. Best, Rafik Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 17:58, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will > transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very > unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! > > -- Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi all, > > As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN > org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations > seem to have been ignored: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf > > I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing > > I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will > be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, > so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if > she can please resolve them. > > That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised > and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this > is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a > thought... > > 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 Tue May 15 08:56:06 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 14:56:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Letter from RPM PDP co-chairs on GDPR & domain name dispute resolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, for those involved in RPM WG, can you please give background about this letter/request? Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mary Wong Date: mar. 15 mai 2018 ? 10:07 Subject: [council] Letter from RPM PDP co-chairs on GDPR & domain name dispute resolution To: council at gnso.icann.org Dear Councilors, Please find attached, for your review and discussion, a letter from the co-chairs of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy Development Process Working Group relating to the impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the provision of domain name dispute resolution services under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS). The letter references and includes an attachment containing relevant provisions of the UDRP and URS Procedures and Rules that may, and in some cases do, involve the use of Whois and personal data in proceedings brought under these processes. The attachment can also be viewed as a Google Sheet via this link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1npMYgAvm9uILCfymewqae_ib6uuqDM_cpBcs3UecHDE/edit?usp=sharing Please let us know if you have any questions or follow up for the Working Group or its co-chairs. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie & Ariel _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RPM Co-Chairs LTR to Council on GDPR - Final - 14 May 2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 450836 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: URS & UDRP Provisions relating to WHOIS%2FPersonal Data - Sheet1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 81211 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue May 15 10:34:26 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 09:34:26 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment : CSC Charter Review Message-ID: <2E48925A-1B25-4083-9378-B75CA18DA9A7@benin2point0.org> Dear all, On April 11th, a call for a Public Comment was announced so as to collect input on the initial report of the Customer Standing Committee Review Team. To quote: ?The Customer Standing Committee was established as one of the post IANA Transition entities and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016. It performs the operational oversight previously performed by the U.S. Department of Commerce?s National Telecommunications and Information Administration as it relates to the monitoring of the performance of the IANA naming functions, currently performed by PTI. Its mission is to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA functions for the direct customers of the naming services? The purpose of the Charter review is to consider whether the Charter is adequate and provides a sound basis for the CSC to perform their responsibilities as envisioned in the development of the IANA Transition Proposal. The review team includes representatives of the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO). They reviewed the initial Charter (one year after establishment and as per the Bylaws) and suggest some small changes to the charter. All in all, there is actually nothing substantial to object or to add except endorse and insist that the CSC follows effectively the guidelines included in the Charter. However, one might be tempted to include a representative of the NCSG either in the CSC Committee or in the next review team (as a liaison), but since there should always be a call for a Public Comment for any review, it is, in my opinion, useless. I therefore suggest a brief comment (see attached link ) to acknowledge the call and endorse it. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed May 16 07:35:25 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 00:35:25 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden Thanks for drafting this. I made some changes to it and I think it looks good to be sent. If you could give me the editing rights or go through the changes yourself I can send it. Farzaneh On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > it doesn't seem that board covered this during its meeting and so we got > some time. > happy with Farzaneh doing the editing during this week, it also gives us > time to consult membership regarding the letter. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 17:58, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will >> transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very >> unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! >> >> -- Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN >> org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations >> seem to have been ignored: >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ >> bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf >> >> I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_ >> yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will >> be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, >> so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if >> she can please resolve them. >> >> That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised >> and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this >> is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a >> thought... >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 16 12:49:14 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 05:49:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <7bgJnOQXNl9py8XgRYhrXL4Z1ExqJnsJFoPMf1d6EMirgRj3EqqJfK-uhUHOCO8uNAiwo4YHLXkTXB6a38UQ6FI3ao2qWNyvybYzHMJoCfE=@ferdeline.com> Thanks Farzaneh, I've adjusted the permissions so that you can edit the document. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 16 May 2018 6:35 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Ayden > > Thanks for drafting this. I made some changes to it and I think it looks good to be sent. If you could give me the editing rights or go through the changes yourself I can send it. > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it doesn't seem that board covered this during its meeting and so we got some time. >> happy with Farzaneh doing the editing during this week, it also gives us time to consult membership regarding the letter. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 17:58, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>> Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! >>> >>> -- Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations seem to have been ignored: >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf >>>> >>>> I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if she can please resolve them. >>>> >>>> That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a thought... >>>> >>>> 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 16 13:01:01 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 19:01:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment : CSC Charter Review In-Reply-To: <2E48925A-1B25-4083-9378-B75CA18DA9A7@benin2point0.org> References: <2E48925A-1B25-4083-9378-B75CA18DA9A7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Farell, Thanks for the draft and update. @everyone please review the short comment and consult the charter to see if we can add anything relevant comment. we should also share the draft in NCSG list for membership consultation Best, Rafik Le mar. 15 mai 2018 ? 16:34, Farell FOLLY a ?crit : > Dear all, > > On April 11th, a call for a Public Comment was announced so as to collect > input on the initial report of the Customer Standing Committee Review Team. > > To quote: > > *?The Customer Standing Committee was established as one of the post IANA > Transition entities and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016. It > performs the operational oversight previously performed by the U.S. > Department of Commerce?s National Telecommunications and Information > Administration as it relates to the monitoring of the performance of the > IANA naming functions, currently performed by PTI. Its mission is to ensure > continued satisfactory performance of the IANA functions for the direct > customers of the naming services?* > > The purpose of the Charter review is to consider whether the Charter is > adequate and provides a sound basis for the CSC to perform their > responsibilities as envisioned in the development of the IANA Transition > Proposal. > > The review team includes representatives of the Registries Stakeholder > Group (RySG) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO). > They reviewed the initial Charter (one year after establishment and as per > the Bylaws) and suggest some small changes > to > the charter. > > All in all, there is actually nothing substantial to object or to add > except endorse and insist that the CSC follows effectively the guidelines > included in the Charter. However, one might be tempted to include a > representative of the NCSG either in the CSC Committee or in the next > review team (as a liaison), but since there should always be a call for a > Public Comment for any review, it is, in my opinion, useless. > > I therefore suggest a brief comment (see attached link > ) > to acknowledge the call and endorse it. > > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed May 16 15:48:47 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 08:48:47 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of RDS-WHOIS2-RT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6bc84145-32aa-7073-6e0f-3876d2cd0e3c@mail.utoronto.ca> we need to respond to this.? I can draft, once we discuss a bit.? Has implications...so we need to consider carefully, much as I would like to curtail this stupid review ..... steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of RDS-WHOIS2-RT Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 06:57:21 +0200 From: Erika Mann To: Alan Greenberg CC: RDS-WHOIS2-RT Hi Alan, hi All - There's a complete reasoning for these 3 options included here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/specific-reviews-short-term-options-timeline-14may18-en.pdf I'm traveling today with little time to think about these options. My understanding is that large part of our work, independently of the WHOIS model going to be selected in the future, is going to be relevant nonetheless. Insofar - currently! - I favor option a). Best, Erika Sent from my iPhone On May 16, 2018, at 4:30 AM, Alan Greenberg > wrote: > I call your attention to a Public Comment (PC) launched yesterday > asking for input on alternatives to alter the RDS-WHOIS2-RT Scope and > plans (as well possible changes to the not yet started ATRT3) - > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-2018-05-14-en. > > I proposes three possible scenarios for our RT: > > a) Proceeds as planned; > > b) reduce scope to just an analysis of the WHOIS1-RT Recommendations; > > c) pause the review entirely for some as yet to be determined time. > > If recommended by the community, b) and c) would require our > agreement. The implications of a community recommendation that we > refused to agree with are not known. If there is a pause, it is not > clear when the unpause would happen and to what extent it would be the > same team moving forward. > > The PC ends on 06 July 2018 and the report on input received is due on > 23 July 2018, a few days before we are currently planning to meet in > Brussels to close-to-finalize our report. > > Although the PC was issues yesterday, neither I nor Susan and Cathrin > had any prior knowledge of it and in fact we only heard of it today. > > We have initiated discussions with MSSI on exactly what this means and > will get back when I have a better understanding. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list > RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 16 15:51:31 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 21:51:31 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of RDS-WHOIS2-RT In-Reply-To: <6bc84145-32aa-7073-6e0f-3876d2cd0e3c@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <6bc84145-32aa-7073-6e0f-3876d2cd0e3c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks, Stephanie, I shared yesterday in the NCSG list the 2 public comments regarding the adjustments of reviews timelines and asked for volunteers to be penholders. can I assume that you are volunteering for the one covering ATRT and RDS RT? Best, Rafik Le mer. 16 mai 2018 ? 21:49, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > we need to respond to this. I can draft, once we discuss a bit. Has > implications...so we need to consider carefully, much as I would like to > curtail this stupid review ..... > > steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of > RDS-WHOIS2-RT > Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 06:57:21 +0200 > From: Erika Mann > To: Alan Greenberg > CC: RDS-WHOIS2-RT > > Hi Alan, hi All - > There's a complete reasoning for these 3 options included here: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/specific-reviews-short-term-options-timeline-14may18-en.pdf > > I'm traveling today with little time to think about these options. My > understanding is that large part of our work, independently of the WHOIS > model going to be selected in the future, is going to be relevant > nonetheless. Insofar - currently! - I favor option a). > > Best, > Erika > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 16, 2018, at 4:30 AM, Alan Greenberg > wrote: > > I call your attention to a Public Comment (PC) launched yesterday asking > for input on alternatives to alter the RDS-WHOIS2-RT Scope and plans (as > well possible changes to the not yet started ATRT3) - > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-2018-05-14-en > . > > I proposes three possible scenarios for our RT: > > a) Proceeds as planned; > > b) reduce scope to just an analysis of the WHOIS1-RT Recommendations; > > c) pause the review entirely for some as yet to be determined time. > > If recommended by the community, b) and c) would require our agreement. > The implications of a community recommendation that we refused to agree > with are not known. If there is a pause, it is not clear when the unpause > would happen and to what extent it would be the same team moving forward. > > The PC ends on 06 July 2018 and the report on input received is due on 23 > July 2018, a few days before we are currently planning to meet in Brussels > to close-to-finalize our report. > > Although the PC was issues yesterday, neither I nor Susan and Cathrin had > any prior knowledge of it and in fact we only heard of it today. > > We have initiated discussions with MSSI on exactly what this means and > will get back when I have a better understanding. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list > RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC 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 May 16 17:06:15 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 14:06:15 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of RDS-WHOIS2-RT In-Reply-To: References: <6bc84145-32aa-7073-6e0f-3876d2cd0e3c@mail.utoronto.ca>, Message-ID: <20180516140613.30802010.70981.99068@mail.utoronto.ca> Sure. We need a rich discussion on the issues. Sorry to have missed your post, buried in stuff.... Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. From: Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 08:51 To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: ncsg-pc Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of RDS-WHOIS2-RT Thanks, Stephanie, I shared yesterday in the NCSG list the 2 public comments regarding the adjustments of reviews timelines and asked for volunteers to be penholders. can I assume that you are volunteering for the one covering ATRT and RDS RT? Best, Rafik Le mer. 16 mai 2018 ? 21:49, Stephanie Perrin > a ?crit : we need to respond to this. I can draft, once we discuss a bit. Has implications...so we need to consider carefully, much as I would like to curtail this stupid review ..... steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of RDS-WHOIS2-RT Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 06:57:21 +0200 From: Erika Mann To: Alan Greenberg CC: RDS-WHOIS2-RT Hi Alan, hi All - There's a complete reasoning for these 3 options included here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/specific-reviews-short-term-options-timeline-14may18-en.pdf I'm traveling today with little time to think about these options. My understanding is that large part of our work, independently of the WHOIS model going to be selected in the future, is going to be relevant nonetheless. Insofar - currently! - I favor option a). Best, Erika Sent from my iPhone On May 16, 2018, at 4:30 AM, Alan Greenberg > wrote: I call your attention to a Public Comment (PC) launched yesterday asking for input on alternatives to alter the RDS-WHOIS2-RT Scope and plans (as well possible changes to the not yet started ATRT3) - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-2018-05-14-en. I proposes three possible scenarios for our RT: a) Proceeds as planned; b) reduce scope to just an analysis of the WHOIS1-RT Recommendations; c) pause the review entirely for some as yet to be determined time. If recommended by the community, b) and c) would require our agreement. The implications of a community recommendation that we refused to agree with are not known. If there is a pause, it is not clear when the unpause would happen and to what extent it would be the same team moving forward. The PC ends on 06 July 2018 and the report on input received is due on 23 July 2018, a few days before we are currently planning to meet in Brussels to close-to-finalize our report. Although the PC was issues yesterday, neither I nor Susan and Cathrin had any prior knowledge of it and in fact we only heard of it today. We have initiated discussions with MSSI on exactly what this means and will get back when I have a better understanding. Alan _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC 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 May 16 18:35:14 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:35:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: <7bgJnOQXNl9py8XgRYhrXL4Z1ExqJnsJFoPMf1d6EMirgRj3EqqJfK-uhUHOCO8uNAiwo4YHLXkTXB6a38UQ6FI3ao2qWNyvybYzHMJoCfE=@ferdeline.com> References: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> <7bgJnOQXNl9py8XgRYhrXL4Z1ExqJnsJFoPMf1d6EMirgRj3EqqJfK-uhUHOCO8uNAiwo4YHLXkTXB6a38UQ6FI3ao2qWNyvybYzHMJoCfE=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks. Here is the final version I will be sending in a couple of hours if no objection. Farzaneh On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:49 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Farzaneh, I've adjusted the permissions so that you can edit the > document. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 16 May 2018 6:35 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi Ayden > > Thanks for drafting this. I made some changes to it and I think it looks > good to be sent. If you could give me the editing rights or go through the > changes yourself I can send it. > > > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it doesn't seem that board covered this during its meeting and so we got >> some time. >> happy with Farzaneh doing the editing during this week, it also gives us >> time to consult membership regarding the letter. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 17:58, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will >>> transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very >>> unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! >>> >>> -- Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN >>> org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations >>> seem to have been ignored: >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton- >>> to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf >>> >>> I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2M >>> QPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I >>> will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in >>> Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG >>> Chair if she can please resolve them. >>> >>> That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment >>> finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I >>> know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, >>> but just a thought... >>> >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ALAC Review.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 158320 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed May 16 22:41:03 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I need to send this to the Discuss list to see if there are any objections. will send it off if no objection received wwithin 24 hours. Farzaneh On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:35 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Ayden > > Thanks for drafting this. I made some changes to it and I think it looks > good to be sent. If you could give me the editing rights or go through the > changes yourself I can send it. > > > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it doesn't seem that board covered this during its meeting and so we got >> some time. >> happy with Farzaneh doing the editing during this week, it also gives us >> time to consult membership regarding the letter. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 17:58, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will >>> transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very >>> unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! >>> >>> -- Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN >>> org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations >>> seem to have been ignored: >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton- >>> to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf >>> >>> I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2M >>> QPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I >>> will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in >>> Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG >>> Chair if she can please resolve them. >>> >>> That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment >>> finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I >>> know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, >>> but just a thought... >>> >>> 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 Thu May 17 19:16:45 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 12:16:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Legislative Correspondence to ICANN Message-ID: Congressmen John Shimkus and Raul Ruiz have written to ICANN re: WHOIS (actually, the letter is not addressed to ICANN, but it has made its way to ICANN still): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kirsh-to-marby-chalaby-11may18-en.pdf Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 18 02:38:10 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 08:38:10 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, I think the matter will be discussed first at OEC level before making any decision and sending that to board, we can check when the committee will have its next meeting Best, Rafik Le jeu. 17 mai 2018 ? 04:41, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > I need to send this to the Discuss list to see if there are any > objections. will send it off if no objection received wwithin 24 hours. > > Farzaneh > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:35 AM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Hi Ayden >> >> Thanks for drafting this. I made some changes to it and I think it looks >> good to be sent. If you could give me the editing rights or go through the >> changes yourself I can send it. >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> it doesn't seem that board covered this during its meeting and so we got >>> some time. >>> happy with Farzaneh doing the editing during this week, it also gives us >>> time to consult membership regarding the letter. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 17:58, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will >>>> transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very >>>> unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! >>>> >>>> -- Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to >>>> ICANN org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose >>>> recommendations seem to have been ignored: >>>> >>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf >>>> >>>> I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I >>>> will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in >>>> Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG >>>> Chair if she can please resolve them. >>>> >>>> That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment >>>> finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I >>>> know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, >>>> but just a thought... >>>> >>>> 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 kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri May 18 03:55:38 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 20:55:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Letter from RPM PDP co-chairs on GDPR & domain name dispute resolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11d7ee0e-ce2d-24c4-32f4-c6bc7e2c6343@kathykleiman.com> Hi Rafik, Belated response due to illness. In consultation with the RPM Working Group, the Co-Chairs shared a letter with the GNSO Council highlighting the importance of WHOIS data for the ICANN-mandated domain name dispute resolution proceedings: the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and the Uniform Rapid Suspension system. The uses of the Whois data include notice to domain name registrants of any proceedings filed against their domain names. Years ago NCUC worked for multiple ways for the Dispute Providers to notify registrants of a pending dispute, including email and hardcopy (in case an email coming from an party with no relationship to the registrant hit spam). These were written into the policies. Our goal in the letter to Council was to share the need for registrant data, on a case by case basis, for the domain name dispute processes. Best, Kathy On 5/15/2018 1:56 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > for those involved in RPM WG, can you please give background about > this letter/request? > > Best, > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Mary Wong > > Date: mar. 15 mai 2018 ??10:07 > Subject: [council] Letter from RPM PDP co-chairs on GDPR & domain name > dispute resolution > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > > > Dear Councilors, > > Please find attached, for your review and discussion, a letter from > the co-chairs of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) > Policy Development Process Working Group relating to the impact of the > General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the provision of domain > name dispute resolution services under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute > Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure > (URS). The letter references and includes an attachment containing > relevant provisions of the UDRP and URS Procedures and Rules that may, > and in some cases do, involve the use of Whois and personal data in > proceedings brought under these processes. > > The attachment can also be viewed as a Google Sheet via this link: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1npMYgAvm9uILCfymewqae_ib6uuqDM_cpBcs3UecHDE/edit?usp=sharing > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or follow up for the > Working Group or its co-chairs. > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary, Julie & Ariel > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri May 18 03:55:56 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 20:55:56 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Letter from RPM PDP co-chairs on GDPR & domain name dispute resolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ab421dc-c604-41bf-b740-bcd703741939@kathykleiman.com> Hi Rafik, Belated response due to illness. In consultation with the RPM Working Group, the Co-Chairs shared a letter with the GNSO Council highlighting the importance of WHOIS data for the ICANN-mandated domain name dispute resolution proceedings: the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and the Uniform Rapid Suspension system. The uses of the Whois data include notice to domain name registrants of any proceedings filed against their domain names. Years ago NCUC worked for multiple ways for the Dispute Providers to notify registrants of a pending dispute, including email and hardcopy (in case an email coming from an party with no relationship to the registrant hit spam). These were written into the policies. Our goal in the letter to Council was to share the need for registrant data, on a case by case basis, for the domain name dispute processes. Tx for the query! Best, Kathy On 5/15/2018 1:56 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > for those involved in RPM WG, can you please give background about > this letter/request? > > Best, > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Mary Wong > > Date: mar. 15 mai 2018 ??10:07 > Subject: [council] Letter from RPM PDP co-chairs on GDPR & domain name > dispute resolution > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > > > Dear Councilors, > > Please find attached, for your review and discussion, a letter from > the co-chairs of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) > Policy Development Process Working Group relating to the impact of the > General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the provision of domain > name dispute resolution services under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute > Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure > (URS). The letter references and includes an attachment containing > relevant provisions of the UDRP and URS Procedures and Rules that may, > and in some cases do, involve the use of Whois and personal data in > proceedings brought under these processes. > > The attachment can also be viewed as a Google Sheet via this link: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1npMYgAvm9uILCfymewqae_ib6uuqDM_cpBcs3UecHDE/edit?usp=sharing > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or follow up for the > Working Group or its co-chairs. > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary, Julie & Ariel > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 18 08:52:35 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 14:52:35 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Letter from RPM PDP co-chairs on GDPR & domain name dispute resolution In-Reply-To: <7ab421dc-c604-41bf-b740-bcd703741939@kathykleiman.com> References: <7ab421dc-c604-41bf-b740-bcd703741939@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Kathy, Thanks for the clarification. an acknowledgment was sent as a response to the letter reception. I understand there is no action requested from us at this time. Best, Rafik Le ven. 18 mai 2018 ? 09:57, Kathy Kleiman a ?crit : > Hi Rafik, > > Belated response due to illness. In consultation with the RPM Working > Group, the Co-Chairs shared a letter with the GNSO Council highlighting the > importance of WHOIS data for the ICANN-mandated domain name dispute > resolution proceedings: the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and the > Uniform Rapid Suspension system. The uses of the Whois data include notice > to domain name registrants of any proceedings filed against their domain > names. > > Years ago NCUC worked for multiple ways for the Dispute Providers to > notify registrants of a pending dispute, including email and hardcopy (in > case an email coming from an party with no relationship to the registrant > hit spam). These were written into the policies. > > Our goal in the letter to Council was to share the need for registrant > data, on a case by case basis, for the domain name dispute processes. Tx > for the query! > Best, Kathy > > On 5/15/2018 1:56 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi, > > for those involved in RPM WG, can you please give background about this > letter/request? > > Best, > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Mary Wong > Date: mar. 15 mai 2018 ? 10:07 > Subject: [council] Letter from RPM PDP co-chairs on GDPR & domain name > dispute resolution > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > Dear Councilors, > > > > Please find attached, for your review and discussion, a letter from the > co-chairs of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy > Development Process Working Group relating to the impact of the General > Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the provision of domain name dispute > resolution services under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy > (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS). The letter > references and includes an attachment containing relevant provisions of the > UDRP and URS Procedures and Rules that may, and in some cases do, involve > the use of Whois and personal data in proceedings brought under these > processes. > > > > The attachment can also be viewed as a Google Sheet via this link: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1npMYgAvm9uILCfymewqae_ib6uuqDM_cpBcs3UecHDE/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or follow up for the Working > Group or its co-chairs. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary, Julie & Ariel > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 18 13:35:52 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 19:35:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing here the placeholder agenda for our next policy call. you can suggest some items for discussion. The agenda item about the impact of the tomperary specification will take almost half of the time allocated for the council call, so we will spend most of the policy call on that matter and discussing NCSG position as the councill will have to lead on this. I. Roll call/Introduction II. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-24may18-en.pdf - Highlight on "Next steps following adoption of ICANN Board Temporary Specification" III. Policy Discussion - Public comments updates: - Open Public Comments https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public - list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 - Policy Topics: - Working Groups, Review Teams, CCWG updates IV. Misc - Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 18 16:18:45 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 09:18:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik- To section IV Misc, please add 'FY19 Budget and Operating Plan - NCSG Response' - I will discuss where we're at with the Budget, what steps are coming next, and what action I would suggest that we take. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 May 2018 12:35 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > I am sharing here the placeholder agenda for our next policy call. you can suggest some items for discussion. > > The agenda item about the impact of the tomperary specification will take almost half of the time allocated for the council call, so we will spend most of the policy call on that matter and discussing NCSG position as the councill will have to lead on this. > > I. Roll call/Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > - Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-24may18-en.pdf > > - Highlight on "Next steps following adoption of ICANN Board Temporary Specification" > > III. Policy Discussion > > - Public comments updates: > > - Open Public Comments https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public > - list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > - Policy Topics: > > - Working Groups, Review Teams, CCWG updates > > IV. Misc > > - > > Best Regards, > > Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri May 18 16:40:53 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 09:40:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <2mYEt-27AVwwF0t4htD70KaYjQr82HkgCc0mwTelAXuLOalCClECB7iK3iS3Ezypy9NZDrjGPsrdiK1xIQMcouuWNAG0_J51JGjewyKlhFM=@ferdeline.com> I think it would be better to send sooner rather than later, we might even get the matter on the agenda... or at least give the OEC, if not the entire Board, the time to read our letter! Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 18 May 2018 1:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > I think the matter will be discussed first at OEC level before making any decision and sending that to board, we can check when the committee will have its next meeting > Best, > > Rafik > Le jeu. 17 mai 2018 ? 04:41, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > >> I need to send this to the Discuss list to see if there are any objections. will send it off if no objection received wwithin 24 hours. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:35 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden >>> >>> Thanks for drafting this. I made some changes to it and I think it looks good to be sent. If you could give me the editing rights or go through the changes yourself I can send it. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> it doesn't seem that board covered this during its meeting and so we got some time. >>>> happy with Farzaneh doing the editing during this week, it also gives us time to consult membership regarding the letter. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 17:58, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> -- Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations seem to have been ignored: >>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if she can please resolve them. >>>>>> >>>>>> That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a thought... >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri May 18 19:42:31 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 12:42:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I will miss the PC meeting as i will be traveling on that specific time. My apologies in advance! Thanks, Arsene ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On May 18, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks, Rafik- > > To section IV Misc, please add 'FY19 Budget and Operating Plan - NCSG Response' - I will discuss where we're at with the Budget, what steps are coming next, and what action I would suggest that we take. > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 18 May 2018 12:35 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the placeholder agenda for our next policy call. you can suggest some items for discussion. >> >> The agenda item about the impact of the tomperary specification will take almost half of the time allocated for the council call, so we will spend most of the policy call on that matter and discussing NCSG position as the councill will have to lead on this. >> >> I. Roll call/Introduction >> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation >> Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-24may18-en.pdf >> Highlight on "Next steps following adoption of ICANN Board Temporary Specification" >> III. Policy Discussion >> Public comments updates: >> Open Public Comments https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public >> list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 >> Policy Topics: >> Working Groups, Review Teams, CCWG updates >> IV. Misc >> >> 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 arsenebaguma at gmail.com Sat May 19 01:32:50 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 18:32:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: <2mYEt-27AVwwF0t4htD70KaYjQr82HkgCc0mwTelAXuLOalCClECB7iK3iS3Ezypy9NZDrjGPsrdiK1xIQMcouuWNAG0_J51JGjewyKlhFM=@ferdeline.com> References: <1A7e7dKPqEOueHfGDzAHrWCRFaHtmXMKWRgkf4CZfRg1H1lqFJHQqvJDgfZqHROGapojbDJ3uz1rIuIjb8UmfI3OOJnX-pdvhNnise56Nk8=@ferdeline.com> <2mYEt-27AVwwF0t4htD70KaYjQr82HkgCc0mwTelAXuLOalCClECB7iK3iS3Ezypy9NZDrjGPsrdiK1xIQMcouuWNAG0_J51JGjewyKlhFM=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I support the submission of this letter. My apologies for not having said this earlier. 2018-05-18 9:40 UTC?04:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > I think it would be better to send sooner rather than later, we might even > get the matter on the agenda... or at least give the OEC, if not the entire > Board, the time to read our letter! > > Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 May 2018 1:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> I think the matter will be discussed first at OEC level before making any >> decision and sending that to board, we can check when the committee will >> have its next meeting >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> Le jeu. 17 mai 2018 ? 04:41, farzaneh badii a >> ?crit : >> >>> I need to send this to the Discuss list to see if there are any >>> objections. will send it off if no objection received wwithin 24 hours. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:35 AM, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden >>>> >>>> Thanks for drafting this. I made some changes to it and I think it looks >>>> good to be sent. If you could give me the editing rights or go through >>>> the changes yourself I can send it. >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> it doesn't seem that board covered this during its meeting and so we >>>>> got some time. >>>>> happy with Farzaneh doing the editing during this week, it also gives >>>>> us time to consult membership regarding the letter. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le sam. 12 mai 2018 ? 17:58, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Farzi, can I leave this letter with you to take forward? If so I will >>>>>> transfer ownership of the Google Doc to your gmail address. It is very >>>>>> unlikely I will be online tomorrow and for much of next week. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 11 May 2018 12:10 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to >>>>>>> ICANN org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose >>>>>>> recommendations seem to have been ignored: >>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I >>>>>>> will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in >>>>>>> Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask >>>>>>> the NCSG Chair if she can please resolve them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment >>>>>>> finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop >>>>>>> tomorrow. I know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we >>>>>>> can manage it, but just a thought... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 -- ------------------------ **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 Sat May 19 14:17:55 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 20:17:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ayden, we will add that item Rafik Le ven. 18 mai 2018 ? 22:18, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks, Rafik- > > To section IV Misc, please add 'FY19 Budget and Operating Plan - NCSG > Response' - I will discuss where we're at with the Budget, what steps are > coming next, and what action I would suggest that we take. > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 May 2018 12:35 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am sharing here the placeholder agenda for our next policy call. you can > suggest some items for discussion. > > The agenda item about the impact of the tomperary specification will take > almost half of the time allocated for the council call, so we will spend > most of the policy call on that matter and discussing NCSG position as the > councill will have to lead on this. > > I. Roll call/Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > - Council agenda: > https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-24may18-en.pdf > - Highlight on "Next steps following adoption of ICANN Board Temporary > Specification" > > III. Policy Discussion > > - Public comments updates: > - Open Public Comments > https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public > - list of volunteers > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > > - Policy Topics: > - Working Groups, Review Teams, CCWG updates > > IV. Misc > > - > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 19 14:18:33 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 20:18:33 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks Arsene, apologies noted. Rafik Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 01:42, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > Hi, > > I will miss the PC meeting as i will be traveling on that specific time. > My apologies in advance! > > Thanks, > Arsene > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On May 18, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks, Rafik- > > To section IV Misc, please add 'FY19 Budget and Operating Plan - NCSG > Response' - I will discuss where we're at with the Budget, what steps are > coming next, and what action I would suggest that we take. > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 May 2018 12:35 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am sharing here the placeholder agenda for our next policy call. you can > suggest some items for discussion. > > The agenda item about the impact of the tomperary specification will take > almost half of the time allocated for the council call, so we will spend > most of the policy call on that matter and discussing NCSG position as the > councill will have to lead on this. > > I. Roll call/Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > - Council agenda: > https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-24may18-en.pdf > - Highlight on "Next steps following adoption of ICANN Board Temporary > Specification" > > III. Policy Discussion > > - Public comments updates: > - Open Public Comments > https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public > - list of volunteers > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > > - Policy Topics: > - Working Groups, Review Teams, CCWG updates > > IV. Misc > > - > > 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 Sat May 19 17:49:51 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 10:49:51 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget Message-ID: Hi PC, I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later this week. Thanks. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 21 02:14:09 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 08:14:09 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, please review asap and check the latest version of the letter so we can consider the endorsement. if there is no objection by Monday 23:59UTC, we will consider as approved by NCSG PC. Thanks, Best, Rafik Le ven. 11 mai 2018 ? 19:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi all, > > As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN > org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations > seem to have been ignored: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf > > I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing > > I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will > be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, > so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if > she can please resolve them. > > That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised > and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this > is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a > thought... > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 21 02:15:11 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 08:15:11 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks for drafting this. I am asking all PC members to review it asap. Best, Rafik Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi PC, > > I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of > the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our > remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them > (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your > input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on > Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later > this week. Thanks. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon May 21 12:01:25 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 09:01:25 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Rafik, Good morning I have personally reviewed and am, very fine and okay with the letter covered all aspects in detail. +1 Poncelet On 20 May 2018 at 23:15, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for drafting this. > I am asking all PC members to review it asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Hi PC, >> >> I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of >> the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our >> remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them >> (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your >> input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on >> Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later >> this week. Thanks. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_ >> oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >> >> 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 > > -- 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 May 21 12:02:53 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 05:02:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get our letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to revise the Budget to address our concerns). Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for drafting this. > I am asking all PC members to review it asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Hi PC, >> >> I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later this week. Thanks. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 21 14:27:08 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 20:27:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review - NCSG Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, we have this draft comment to be reviewed, the deadline for submission is for 10th June Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Akinremi Peter Taiwo Date: lun. 21 mai 2018 ? 19:45 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review - NCSG Comment To: Hi all, Kindly find for your comment the NSCG position on the RSSAC2 Review. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZmkkZunvOv7ONkPINI3pPjhTj5CHjz1IB4fg1649fE/edit?usp=sharing . Also, find the background and more details here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rssac2-review-final-2018-05-01-en . Regards. Peter -- *Akinremi Peter Taiwo* [ West Africa Coordinator ] African Civil Society on Information Society (*ACSIS*) *Website: *www.acsis-scasi.org *Chief E*xecutive Consultant. [ Compsoftnet Enterprise ] www.compsoftnet.com.ng Nigeria *T*echnical Consultant [ RetailPoint ] Lagos Website: www.retailpos.com.ng *Phone:* +2347-0638-30177, +2348-1874-76292 *twitter:* @compsoftnet *Skype:* akinremi.peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon May 21 18:03:23 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 11:03:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am hearing that Finance intends to publish the final version of the Budget today, so I suppose there is no point in submitting this letter, as we'll have missed our opportunity to shape the contents of the new draft. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 21 May 2018 11:02 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- > > Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get our letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to revise the Budget to address our concerns). > > Best wishes, Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks for drafting this. >> I am asking all PC members to review it asap. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>> Hi PC, >>> >>> I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later this week. Thanks. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon May 21 20:38:32 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 14:38:32 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I fully support the letter, I thought I sent an email earlier but I noticed is not on the this chain, so here I state it again just in case! As usual, amazing work of Ayden with the budget. Best, Martin > On 21 May 2018, at 12:03, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I am hearing that Finance intends to publish the final version of the Budget today, so I suppose there is no point in submitting this letter, as we'll have missed our opportunity to shape the contents of the new draft. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 21 May 2018 11:02 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- >> >> Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get our letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to revise the Budget to address our concerns). >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thanks for drafting this. >>> I am asking all PC members to review it asap. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : >>> Hi PC, >>> >>> I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later this week. Thanks. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> 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 mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon May 21 21:04:20 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 15:04:20 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <184FB8FC-99BB-435A-9F03-B4D868E38C14@gmail.com> I read it over the weekend, I found it more than fair. Most of you already know my views on the matter. Cheers, Mart?n > On 20 May 2018, at 20:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > please review asap and check the latest version of the letter so we can consider the endorsement. if there is no objection by Monday 23:59UTC, we will consider as approved by NCSG PC. > Thanks, > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le ven. 11 mai 2018 ? 19:10, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : > Hi all, > > As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations seem to have been ignored: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf > > I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing > > I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if she can please resolve them. > > That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a thought... > > 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 jumaropi at yahoo.com Mon May 21 22:54:08 2018 From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 19:54:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: <184FB8FC-99BB-435A-9F03-B4D868E38C14@gmail.com> References: <184FB8FC-99BB-435A-9F03-B4D868E38C14@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1146863076.3652026.1526932448642@mail.yahoo.com> I agree with this comment.? JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P. Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?ColombiaCommunications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANNCluster Orinoco TIC memberMaster IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes Cel. +57 3017435600 Twitter:?@JmanuRojas ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? El lunes, 21 de mayo de 2018 1:04:44 p. m. GMT-5, Martin Pablo Silva Valent escribi?: I read it over the weekend, I found it more than fair. Most of you already know my views on the matter. Cheers,Mart?n On 20 May 2018, at 20:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, please review asap and check? the latest version of the letter so we can consider the endorsement. if there is no objection by Monday 23:59UTC, we will consider as approved by NCSG PC.Thanks, Best, Rafik Le?ven. 11 mai 2018 ??19:10, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit?: Hi all, As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations seem to have been ignored:? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if she can please resolve them. That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a thought... 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 mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue May 22 01:07:18 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 19:07:18 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Go for it! Martin On Mon, May 21, 2018, 6:03 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- > > Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be > worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final > version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get our > letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to revise the > Budget to address our concerns). > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for drafting this. > I am asking all PC members to review it asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Hi PC, >> >> I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of >> the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our >> remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them >> (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your >> input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on >> Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later >> this week. Thanks. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >> >> 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 jumaropi at yahoo.com Tue May 22 01:14:41 2018 From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 22:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <320488852.3711082.1526940881188@mail.yahoo.com> I ?have no objeciones on this letter JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P. Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?ColombiaCommunications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANNCluster Orinoco TIC memberMaster IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes Cel. +57 3017435600 Twitter:?@JmanuRojas ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? El lunes, 21 de mayo de 2018 5:07:40 p. m. GMT-5, Martin Pablo Silva Valent escribi?: Go for it!Martin On Mon, May 21, 2018, 6:03 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get our letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to revise the Budget to address our concerns). Best wishes, Ayden?? ??????? Original Message ??????? On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ayden, Thanks for drafting this. I am asking all PC members to review it asap. Best, Rafik Le?sam. 19 mai 2018 ??23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit?: Hi PC, I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later this week. Thanks. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue May 22 04:07:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:07:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Statement on ALAC Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, the deadline passed and there was no objection, I think the comment is endorsed. Best, Rafik Le lun. 21 mai 2018 ? 08:14, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > please review asap and check the latest version of the letter so we can > consider the endorsement. if there is no objection by Monday 23:59UTC, we > will consider as approved by NCSG PC. > Thanks, > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le ven. 11 mai 2018 ? 19:10, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> As you may be aware, the Contracted Parties House sent a letter to ICANN >> org recently in relation to the critical ALAC Review, whose recommendations >> seem to have been ignored: >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bunton-to-chalaby-07may18-en.pdf >> >> I have drafted an NCSG response; a first draft is here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oDVkLsr-jx_yPBRQ9gepGe2MQPIGbUmXJS9PplEBXzc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> I'm happy to receive edits and comments today or tomorrow. However I will >> be offline Sunday and most of next week at the RIPE meeting in Marseille, >> so if any comments come in during this time, I will ask the NCSG Chair if >> she can please resolve them. >> >> That said, I think it would be advantageous to get this comment finalised >> and sent to the Board before their Vancouver workshop tomorrow. I know this >> is a very tight turnaround, and I'm not sure we can manage it, but just a >> thought... >> >> 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 farell at benin2point0.org Tue May 22 12:05:52 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 11:05:52 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: <320488852.3711082.1526940881188@mail.yahoo.com> References: <320488852.3711082.1526940881188@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear All, I have no objection and I would like to thank Ayden once more for all his commitment. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 22 May 2018, at 00:14, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC wrote: > > I have no objeciones on this letter > > JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P. > Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia > Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN > Cluster Orinoco TIC member > Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes > > Cel. +57 3017435600 > Twitter: @JmanuRojas > > > > > > > > > El lunes, 21 de mayo de 2018 5:07:40 p. m. GMT-5, Martin Pablo Silva Valent escribi?: > > > Go for it! > Martin > > On Mon, May 21, 2018, 6:03 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- > > Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get our letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to revise the Budget to address our concerns). > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks for drafting this. >> I am asking all PC members to review it asap. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : >> Hi PC, >> >> I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later this week. Thanks. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >> >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC 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 May 22 12:13:56 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 05:13:56 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: <320488852.3711082.1526940881188@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There is absolutely no point in submitting this comment now, as ICANN has just published the Final Proposed FY19 Operating Plan and Budget, so it is too late for our feedback to be considered. We missed the opportunity to comment here, which has hurt us, as I note in the granted Additional Budgetary Requests, we didn't receive the support we expected. Ayden F?rdeline ??????? Original Message ??????? On 22 May 2018 11:05 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear All, > > I have no objection and I would like to thank Ayden once more for all his commitment. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > >> On 22 May 2018, at 00:14, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC wrote: >> >> I have no objeciones on this letter >> >> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P. >> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia >> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN >> Cluster Orinoco TIC member >> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes >> >> Cel. +57 3017435600 >> Twitter: [@JmanuRojas](http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas) >> >> El lunes, 21 de mayo de 2018 5:07:40 p. m. GMT-5, Martin Pablo Silva Valent escribi?: >> >> Go for it! >> Martin >> >> On Mon, May 21, 2018, 6:03 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- >>> >>> Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get our letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to revise the Budget to address our concerns). >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> Thanks for drafting this. >>>> I am asking all PC members to review it asap. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi PC, >>>>> >>>>> I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later this week. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC 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 May 22 12:20:18 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 05:20:18 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Intersessional cancelled? Message-ID: <2gtbyl_d9x0BF4FUrl2lDdBhbLGV4jKjxRwSvEq-lqt26vlVu1-7-skOCvNK7TwK6l_kV1NGNIdsVpb_d7zXNqdxjVOXIw27v04ucEwc_Do=@ferdeline.com> Perhaps unsurprisingly, no funding has been allocated to the Intersessional in the final FY19 Budget (see page 26 of Document 2). So I presume it is dead. I also do not see any IGF travel slots approved for the NCSG/NCUC/NPOC, so I guess that's not being funded either this year. Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue May 22 22:59:10 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 15:59:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Misspoke Message-ID: I think I misspoke on today's PC call and said that the Review budget had decreased by $3 million. I was just reviewing the documents, and it has decreased by $800,000. I think the point I made still stands, but just correcting the record here, as $800k isn't as significant a cut. However, I also noted something more troubling. CROP has only been restored by 50%, so I was wrong to say we'd saved this resource for a year, we've saved half of it for a year. The entire CROP budget for FY19 is $50,000 for the entire community, which is crumbs. Why it couldn't be restored 100% I do not understand. Then again we suggested ways for the org to save money and instead they proposed increasing expenditure in those areas. Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue May 22 23:14:27 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? Message-ID: Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Tue May 22 23:19:26 2018 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 20:19:26 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why not? At the very least it will be on record. Keep it short and punchy and refer to the previous letters which can be attached. best On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before > it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP > to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase > ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case > in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource > very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and > expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost > implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 > people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been > discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? > > 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 arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed May 23 09:11:50 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 09:11:50 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Misspoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: May I kindly suggest you share this with the whole list, Ayden. I think it is important update that everyone needs to know, especially with regards to CROP. 2018-05-22 22:59 UTC+03:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > I think I misspoke on today's PC call and said that the Review budget had > decreased by $3 million. I was just reviewing the documents, and it has > decreased by $800,000. I think the point I made still stands, but just > correcting the record here, as $800k isn't as significant a cut. > > However, I also noted something more troubling. CROP has only been restored > by 50%, so I was wrong to say we'd saved this resource for a year, we've > saved half of it for a year. The entire CROP budget for FY19 is $50,000 for > the entire community, which is crumbs. Why it couldn't be restored 100% I do > not understand. > > Then again we suggested ways for the org to save money and instead they > proposed increasing expenditure in those areas. > > Ayden -- ------------------------ **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 May 23 09:25:08 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 09:25:08 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In support of this, more for the CROP and Council strategic Session. I am not sure about the IGF though where, in my opinion, we have not been able to measure the impact or the value on our work. Especially now that the IGF is no longer that exciting (and relevant?) as it used to be 2018-05-22 23:19 UTC+03:00, dorothy g : > Why not? At the very least it will be on record. Keep it short and punchy > and refer to the previous letters which can be attached. > best > > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before >> it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating >> CROP >> to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), >> increase >> ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case >> in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource >> very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and >> expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost >> implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for >> 21 >> people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been >> discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >> >> Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Wed May 23 09:30:56 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 09:30:56 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: <320488852.3711082.1526940881188@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: My apologies I missed this and didn't carefully consider the deadline 2018-05-22 12:13 UTC+03:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > There is absolutely no point in submitting this comment now, as ICANN has > just published the Final Proposed FY19 Operating Plan and Budget, so it is > too late for our feedback to be considered. We missed the opportunity to > comment here, which has hurt us, as I note in the granted Additional > Budgetary Requests, we didn't receive the support we expected. > > Ayden F?rdeline > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 22 May 2018 11:05 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I have no objection and I would like to thank Ayden once more for all his >> commitment. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >>> On 22 May 2018, at 00:14, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC >>> wrote: >>> >>> I have no objeciones on this letter >>> >>> JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P. >>> Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia >>> Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns >>> Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN >>> Cluster Orinoco TIC member >>> Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes >>> >>> Cel. +57 3017435600 >>> Twitter: [@JmanuRojas](http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas) >>> >>> El lunes, 21 de mayo de 2018 5:07:40 p. m. GMT-5, Martin Pablo Silva >>> Valent escribi?: >>> >>> Go for it! >>> Martin >>> >>> On Mon, May 21, 2018, 6:03 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- >>>> >>>> Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be >>>> worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final >>>> version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get >>>> our letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to >>>> revise the Budget to address our concerns). >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for drafting this. >>>>> I am asking all PC members to review it asap. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi PC, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis >>>>>> of the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to >>>>>> clarify our remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has >>>>>> misinterpreted them (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough >>>>>> around the edges, so your input would be greatly appreciated. I'm >>>>>> hoping we can submit this on Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish >>>>>> an update to the Budget later this week. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Wed May 23 09:35:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 15:35:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [please review] Proposed Letter to ICANN org re: Budget In-Reply-To: References: <320488852.3711082.1526940881188@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, I don't think we can blame anyone here, we got really short time and the final budget was published (I think most of us were not aware about the date till late). the whole budget and operating plan process still need a lot of improvement in the way to get community input and include it. as we have already a new thread regarding a letter based on the final budget we can continue the discussion there. Best, Rafik Le mar. 22 mai 2018 ? 18:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > There is absolutely no point in submitting this comment now, as ICANN has > just published the Final Proposed FY19 Operating Plan and Budget, so it is > too late for our feedback to be considered. We missed the opportunity to > comment here, which has hurt us, as I note in the granted Additional > Budgetary Requests, we didn't receive the support we expected. > > Ayden F?rdeline > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 22 May 2018 11:05 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > > Dear All, > > I have no objection and I would like to thank Ayden once more for all his > commitment. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > On 22 May 2018, at 00:14, Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC < > ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > > I have no objeciones on this letter > > JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P. > Presidente - AGEIA DENSI Colombia > Communications Committee Chair. Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns > Constituency (NPOC) - ICANN > Cluster Orinoco TIC member > Master IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes > > Cel. +57 3017435600 > Twitter: @JmanuRojas > > > > > > > > El lunes, 21 de mayo de 2018 5:07:40 p. m. GMT-5, Martin Pablo Silva > Valent escribi?: > > > Go for it! > Martin > > On Mon, May 21, 2018, 6:03 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks, Rafik and Poncelet- > > Time is short on this one; if we don't submit it today, it might not be > worth submitting this letter at all, as ICANN org will release the final > version of the Budget this week, likely tomorrow (and if we don't get our > letter to them before then, we can't reasonably expect them to revise the > Budget to address our concerns). > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 21 May 2018 1:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for drafting this. > I am asking all PC members to review it asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le sam. 19 mai 2018 ? 23:50, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > > Hi PC, > > I've drafted a new letter to be sent to ICANN org re: their analysis of > the NCSG comment on the FY19 Budget. I think it is important to clarify our > remarks, as it is my view that ICANN org has misinterpreted them > (unintentionally, I'm sure). This is still rough around the edges, so your > input would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping we can submit this on > Monday, as ICANN org is likely to publish an update to the Budget later > this week. Thanks. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.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 May 24 09:26:38 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:26:38 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, thanks, Ayden for the summary. I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. the budget approval is scheduled for next week. Best, Rafik Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before > it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP > to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase > ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case > in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource > very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and > expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost > implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 > people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been > discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Thu May 24 15:43:10 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 14:43:10 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56348C3A-5A02-472B-8F60-1FE7E59798DD@benin2point0.org> Hello Ayden, That is a good idea. I support it. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 22 May 2018, at 22:14, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? > > 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 24 17:57:12 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 10:57:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: <56348C3A-5A02-472B-8F60-1FE7E59798DD@benin2point0.org> References: <56348C3A-5A02-472B-8F60-1FE7E59798DD@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: ditto Stephanie On 2018-05-24 08:43, Farell FOLLY wrote: > Hello Ayden, > > That is a good idea. I support it. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > >> On 22 May 2018, at 22:14, Ayden F?rdeline > > wrote: >> >> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board >> before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider >> reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - >> extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for >> the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop >> acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more >> than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic >> Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess >> max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in >> recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued >> so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >> >> Ayden >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 24 19:25:03 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 12:25:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board agenda for 30 May. The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the growth there is because the community directed the organisation to undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > thanks, Ayden for the summary. > I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. > the budget approval is scheduled for next week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >> >> Ayden >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 24 20:14:00 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:14:00 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] ICANN62 GNSO Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looks good -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 24 May 2018 8:54 AM, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: > Dear all, > > The most recent iteration of the GNSO Schedule for ICANN62 has been posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/icann62-draft-gnso-schedule-22may18-en.pdf > > 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: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 24 20:35:16 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:35:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft EPDP Timeline Message-ID: Attached is the draft EPDP timeline. I know you have probably seen it already in Adobe, but finding it in PDP form took some hunting. Here it is. Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Timeline.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 27021 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 24 23:18:16 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:18:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of RDS-WHOIS2-RT In-Reply-To: <6bc84145-32aa-7073-6e0f-3876d2cd0e3c@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <6bc84145-32aa-7073-6e0f-3876d2cd0e3c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: To start this conversation... I am inclined to suggest Option A. I say this because the WHOIS 2 Review is supposed to be an independent review, and the Review Team (from what I gather) would like it to continue. And, given $360k has already been spent on two face-to-face meetings and a lunch (the catering bill was $15k in Johannesburg for 20 or so people for an informal 'kick off' - what did you spend that on? champagne?), and an initial report is not too far away, it seems better to finish this one off and not re-start it in a year's time. Plus, there's another 9 Reviews that have to be started... Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 16 May 2018 2:48 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > we need to respond to this. I can draft, once we discuss a bit. Has implications...so we need to consider carefully, much as I would like to curtail this stupid review ..... > > steph > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN Proposal to adjust scope of RDS-WHOIS2-RT > Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 06:57:21 +0200 > From: Erika Mann [](mailto:erika at erikamann.com) > > To: Alan Greenberg [](mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) > > CC: RDS-WHOIS2-RT [](mailto:rds-whois2-rt at icann.org) > > Hi Alan, hi All - > There's a complete reasoning for these 3 options included here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/specific-reviews-short-term-options-timeline-14may18-en.pdf > > I'm traveling today with little time to think about these options. My understanding is that large part of our work, independently of the WHOIS model going to be selected in the future, is going to be relevant nonetheless. Insofar - currently! - I favor option a). > > Best, > Erika > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 16, 2018, at 4:30 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> I call your attention to a Public Comment (PC) launched yesterday asking for input on alternatives to alter the RDS-WHOIS2-RT Scope and plans (as well possible changes to the not yet started ATRT3) - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-2018-05-14-en. >> >> I proposes three possible scenarios for our RT: >> >> a) Proceeds as planned; >> >> b) reduce scope to just an analysis of the WHOIS1-RT Recommendations; >> >> c) pause the review entirely for some as yet to be determined time. >> >> If recommended by the community, b) and c) would require our agreement. The implications of a community recommendation that we refused to agree with are not known. If there is a pause, it is not clear when the unpause would happen and to what extent it would be the same team moving forward. >> >> The PC ends on 06 July 2018 and the report on input received is due on 23 July 2018, a few days before we are currently planning to meet in Brussels to close-to-finalize our report. >> >> Although the PC was issues yesterday, neither I nor Susan and Cathrin had any prior knowledge of it and in fact we only heard of it today. >> >> We have initiated discussions with MSSI on exactly what this means and will get back when I have a better understanding. >> >> Alan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list >> RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 25 02:10:13 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 08:10:13 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like policy. Best, Rafik Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic > tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board > agenda for 30 May. > > The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the > growth there is because the community directed the organisation to > undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake > these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% > (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think > about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks, Ayden for the summary. > I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important > and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural > and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I > think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. > the budget approval is scheduled for next week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before >> it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP >> to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase >> ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case >> in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource >> very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and >> expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost >> implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 >> people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been >> discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >> >> 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 Fri May 25 02:23:53 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 08:23:53 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your input - questions for the ICANN Board following the adoption of the temporary specification In-Reply-To: <28F48229-972B-44F5-A290-1B5DEC42F6B8@icann.org> References: <28F48229-972B-44F5-A290-1B5DEC42F6B8@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi all, we can discuss which questions to be asked for the meeting with the board. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marika Konings Date: ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 07:55 Subject: [council] For your input - questions for the ICANN Board following the adoption of the temporary specification To: council at gnso.icann.org Dear All, As discussed during the Council meeting earlier today, please include your input as well as that of your respective SG/C with regards to which questions / issues that should be discussed with the ICANN Board following the adoption of the temporary policy specification in this google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I5fyQTqYmcKft-4yiOKP6WMcCST0a1sZGtAY1jofAb4/edit?usp=sharing. A number of initial questions that have come up in the various conversations have been included as a starting point. Best regards, Marika *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . * _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun May 27 17:07:27 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 10:07:27 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your input - questions for the ICANN Board following the adoption of the temporary specification In-Reply-To: References: <28F48229-972B-44F5-A290-1B5DEC42F6B8@icann.org> Message-ID: <8ZnK-exBm8cKn75d7FO49Rz0t3v-0VpxEgaxmjDyaprgz4bcWKaDIq7aI8xUE07Kt9GHUldVud4i_O7JNAUF4iKtcOKKCYS2GX5I9_Et5q4=@ferdeline.com> Thanks, Rafik. I have been thinking about what questions to ask, and it is difficult because it is still not clear to me what is within the scope of the ePDP (and what isn't). So that makes it difficult to think about what resources we'll need to do the ePDP well. That aside, I think it would be helpful to know how involved the Board itself would like to be with this ePDP. Do they want a liaison on the ePDP, or would there be a desire for participation? Would it be appropriate to have a monthly stocktaking/status update with the Board (in addition to with the Council, who really needs to be kept informed)? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 25 May 2018 1:23 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > we can discuss which questions to be asked for the meeting with the board. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings > Date: ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 07:55 > Subject: [council] For your input - questions for the ICANN Board following the adoption of the temporary specification > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > Dear All, > > As discussed during the Council meeting earlier today, please include your input as well as that of your respective SG/C with regards to which questions / issues that should be discussed with the ICANN Board following the adoption of the temporary policy specification in this google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I5fyQTqYmcKft-4yiOKP6WMcCST0a1sZGtAY1jofAb4/edit?usp=sharing. A number of initial questions that have come up in the various conversations have been included as a starting point. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > Marika Konings > > Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: marika.konings at icann.org > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun May 27 17:43:30 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 10:43:30 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into the letter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if there is PC support. Thanks very much! Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like policy. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board agenda for 30 May. >> >> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the growth there is because the community directed the organisation to undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>>> >>>> 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 May 27 21:38:24 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 14:38:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP Membership Composition Options Message-ID: So on our recent PC call, Farzaneh suggested that we create a spreadsheet and list the positives and negatives of all of the different ePDP composition options. I've created a Google Doc now, and would encourage you to help populate it with more positive/negatives. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X0aPWrZHzRNRoZgwByDK-NdzE9E-R8HddbD2pVJVBx0/edit?usp=sharing I like Option 6 (Committee of the Whole); I think that would work well for us, in terms of representation - except that we lose Stephanie in a few months, as she is term limited on the Council, and we would therefore lose our most powerful voice on this topic. But, above are the options, and we can even propose an Option 7... Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Mon May 28 00:53:08 2018 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 21:53:08 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First, I like the crisp letter, it is clear on the issues. The transparency of the budget process both in terms of budget development and monitoring is crucial to the future of ICANN.org. I will be honest and say that I did not read through all of the rest but since it is mostly quotes I hope it should be fine. Secondly, whatever happens on May 30, I believe we should immediately engage with respect to the next budget. If the organisation is hit with legal issues we can expect more pressures on finances and as a community we will have to figure out some strategies to overcome new constraints. best On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into > the letter: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_ > oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing > > Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it > and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would > be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if > there is PC support. Thanks very much! > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same > problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever > support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal > year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years > with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one > suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like > policy. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic >> tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board >> agenda for 30 May. >> >> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the >> growth there is because the community directed the organisation to >> undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake >> these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% >> (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think >> about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important >> and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural >> and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I >> think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board >>> before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider >>> reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra >>> $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as >>> has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do >>> use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the >>> entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days >>> to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + >>> per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional >>> has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>> >>> 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 28 01:40:08 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:40:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] publi comments review Message-ID: 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: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon May 28 01:42:03 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 18:42:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is fine by me On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:43 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into > the letter: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing > > Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it > and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would > be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if > there is PC support. Thanks very much! > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same > problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever > support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal > year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years > with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one > suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like > policy. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic >> tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board >> agenda for 30 May. >> >> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the >> growth there is because the community directed the organisation to >> undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake >> these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% >> (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think >> about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important >> and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural >> and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I >> think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board >>> before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider >>> reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra >>> $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as >>> has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do >>> use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the >>> entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days >>> to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + >>> per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional >>> has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>> >>> 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 May 28 01:52:26 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:52:26 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP Membership Composition Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, thanks, Ayden for the document. one problem with option 6 is that the council composition will change with the election for the different groups. another issue is that doesn't take into consideration the expertise expected for this topic and may put more workload on the council. the council was more involved in policy doing before but that was found problematic and that is why we got this separation between policy making and policy management. Moreover, the council leadership itself will change as Heather and Donna are term-limited and we have no idea who will replace them. I think most of the options take into account the composition issue and try to resolve it based on the experience from RDS WG. I think the CCWG minus (should be renamed as CCWG can be misleading) can be acceptable allowing us to appoint our experts who can commit time and focus on the issue. I understand we can argue about the number of representatives and the right size for the group (what can be the right number for "small"?)but at the end what matters is being consistent in term of participation from our side and being strategical. no idea what can be an option 7 and how much we can be creative. it may be even counter-productive without knowing other SG/C reactions. Anyway, everything is open for now. Best, Rafik Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 03:38, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > So on our recent PC call, Farzaneh suggested that we create a spreadsheet > and list the positives and negatives of all of the different ePDP > composition options. I've created a Google Doc now, and would encourage you > to help populate it with more positive/negatives. > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X0aPWrZHzRNRoZgwByDK-NdzE9E-R8HddbD2pVJVBx0/edit?usp=sharing > > I like Option 6 (Committee of the Whole); I think that would work well for > us, in terms of representation - except that we lose Stephanie in a few > months, as she is term limited on the Council, and we would therefore lose > our most powerful voice on this topic. > > But, above are the options, and we can even propose an Option 7... > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 28 01:59:43 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:59:43 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] For your input - questions for the ICANN Board following the adoption of the temporary specification In-Reply-To: <8ZnK-exBm8cKn75d7FO49Rz0t3v-0VpxEgaxmjDyaprgz4bcWKaDIq7aI8xUE07Kt9GHUldVud4i_O7JNAUF4iKtcOKKCYS2GX5I9_Et5q4=@ferdeline.com> References: <28F48229-972B-44F5-A290-1B5DEC42F6B8@icann.org> <8ZnK-exBm8cKn75d7FO49Rz0t3v-0VpxEgaxmjDyaprgz4bcWKaDIq7aI8xUE07Kt9GHUldVud4i_O7JNAUF4iKtcOKKCYS2GX5I9_Et5q4=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, I expect the first question with the board will be about scope. based on discussion threads in council list and the last council call, some groups may push for including more topics i.e. accreditation model and they can use the annex in the temporary specification as an argument. personally, I will think we have to have a limited scope for EPDP while building for a long-term solution (either by "reforming" RDS PDP or start a new process, I have no idea). anyway, we will know more from the board about their expectation and I think they will prepare for that. from previous experience with CCWG, I think the board approach will have the liaison(s) to the EPDP. as we have several restricted options, I don't see how the board will have more participation or if there is any real desire for that (the board seems to have a focal point by the issue in general). indeed keeping informing the board, the council and the community will be critical, a monthly update would be the least we can do. another point to clarify is other ACs involvement but that is up to council to figure out. Best, Rafik Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ? 23:07, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks, Rafik. > > I have been thinking about what questions to ask, and it is difficult > because it is still not clear to me what is within the scope of the ePDP > (and what isn't). So that makes it difficult to think about what resources > we'll need to do the ePDP well. > > That aside, I think it would be helpful to know how involved the Board > itself would like to be with this ePDP. Do they want a liaison on the ePDP, > or would there be a desire for participation? Would it be appropriate to > have a monthly stocktaking/status update with the Board (in addition to > with the Council, who really needs to be kept informed)? > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 25 May 2018 1:23 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi all, > > we can discuss which questions to be asked for the meeting with the board. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings > Date: ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 07:55 > Subject: [council] For your input - questions for the ICANN Board > following the adoption of the temporary specification > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > Dear All, > > > > As discussed during the Council meeting earlier today, please include your > input as well as that of your respective SG/C with regards to which > questions / issues that should be discussed with the ICANN Board following > the adoption of the temporary policy specification in this google doc: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I5fyQTqYmcKft-4yiOKP6WMcCST0a1sZGtAY1jofAb4/edit?usp=sharing. > A number of initial questions that have come up in the various > conversations have been included as a starting point. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . * > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 28 12:18:09 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 18:18:09 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. Best, Rafik Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ? 23:43, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into > the letter: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing > > Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it > and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would > be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if > there is PC support. Thanks very much! > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same > problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever > support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal > year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years > with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one > suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like > policy. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic >> tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board >> agenda for 30 May. >> >> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the >> growth there is because the community directed the organisation to >> undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake >> these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% >> (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think >> about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important >> and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural >> and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I >> think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board >>> before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider >>> reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra >>> $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as >>> has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do >>> use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the >>> entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days >>> to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + >>> per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional >>> has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>> >>> Ayden >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon May 28 13:11:32 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 06:11:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, in the interest of time I will share this to the NCSG list now. However further edits from PC members are more than welcome! Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 May 2018 11:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. > I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ? 23:43, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into the letter: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if there is PC support. Thanks very much! >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like policy. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board agenda for 30 May. >>>> >>>> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the growth there is because the community directed the organisation to undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>>>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >>>>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Mon May 28 13:15:00 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 18:15:00 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP Membership Composition Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don?t like option 6. It sets a bad precedent for a lot of reasons, and it might give us some temporary leverage but I think it has many disadvantages, including some for the the pro-privacy advocacy side. I broadly agree with most of the issues Rafik brings up. I think the CCWG model is a reasonable choice, though its a compromise in many ways. Our biggest asset is the strength of our arguments, and having our strongest advocates (especially, but not only, Stephanie) always able to participate in relevant discussion is vital for us. If we do go for something more like a standard PDP model, or a more open CCWG, I would strongly advise from our RDS experience that 1) the leadership team that represented all SGs was a very useful model and 2) such a leadership team should be more empowered to control process by consensus decision, and to control participants if they are not constructive. I also think that the rules in the charter of the RDS WG that restricted the extent to which we could separate into sub-teams were very unhelpful, and the RDS could have made a lot more progress if we were able to push some issues into small sub-teams that could deep dive on some tricky issues - and then have the leadership restrict the extent to which those issues could be revisited by people who had no new arguments but just wished to revisit previous ones more forcefully. I also think that a large amount of ?parallelisation? of the process, while it presents challenges in an area where there is a lot of interconnectedness between issues, is really the only practical way to get all the work needed done. So I?d argue for a larger group, with the ability for multiple sub-teams. I also think that while the small number of participants is a natural reaction the problem of the RDS WG, putting the entire responsibility of the process onto a small number of people, especially ones who already have other responsibilities, is a recipe for burnout and disaster. I?m not entirely giving up on the straight PDP model, but the RDS WG certainly showed some of its flaws fairly harshly. David > On 28 May 2018, at 6:52 am, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks, Ayden for the document. > one problem with option 6 is that the council composition will change with the election for the different groups. another issue is that doesn't take into consideration the expertise expected for this topic and may put more workload on the council. the council was more involved in policy doing before but that was found problematic and that is why we got this separation between policy making and policy management. Moreover, the council leadership itself will change as Heather and Donna are term-limited and we have no idea who will replace them. > > I think most of the options take into account the composition issue and try to resolve it based on the experience from RDS WG. I think the CCWG minus (should be renamed as CCWG can be misleading) can be acceptable allowing us to appoint our experts who can commit time and focus on the issue. I understand we can argue about the number of representatives and the right size for the group (what can be the right number for "small"?)but at the end what matters is being consistent in term of participation from our side and being strategical. > no idea what can be an option 7 and how much we can be creative. it may be even counter-productive without knowing other SG/C reactions. Anyway, everything is open for now. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 03:38, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : > So on our recent PC call, Farzaneh suggested that we create a spreadsheet and list the positives and negatives of all of the different ePDP composition options. I've created a Google Doc now, and would encourage you to help populate it with more positive/negatives. > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X0aPWrZHzRNRoZgwByDK-NdzE9E-R8HddbD2pVJVBx0/edit?usp=sharing > > I like Option 6 (Committee of the Whole); I think that would work well for us, in terms of representation - except that we lose Stephanie in a few months, as she is term limited on the Council, and we would therefore lose our most powerful voice on this topic. > > But, above are the options, and we can even propose an Option 7... > > 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: -------------- 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 pileleji at ymca.gm Mon May 28 14:13:03 2018 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 11:13:03 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Ayden, This is perfectly fine by me the final version. Kind Regards Poncelet On 28 May 2018 at 10:11, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Rafik, in the interest of time I will share this to the NCSG list > now. However further edits from PC members are more than welcome! > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 28 May 2018 11:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. > I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ? 23:43, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into >> the letter: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_ >> oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it >> and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would >> be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if >> there is PC support. Thanks very much! >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same >> problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever >> support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal >> year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years >> with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one >> suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like >> policy. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic >>> tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board >>> agenda for 30 May. >>> >>> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the >>> growth there is because the community directed the organisation to >>> undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake >>> these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% >>> (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think >>> about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important >>> and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural >>> and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I >>> think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board >>>> before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider >>>> reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra >>>> $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as >>>> has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do >>>> use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the >>>> entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days >>>> to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + >>>> per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional >>>> has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://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 May 28 14:14:22 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:14:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the speedy review Poncelet, Dorothy, and Farzi! - Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 May 2018 1:13 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Hello Ayden, > This is perfectly fine by me the final version. > > Kind Regards > Poncelet > > On 28 May 2018 at 10:11, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks Rafik, in the interest of time I will share this to the NCSG list now. However further edits from PC members are more than welcome! >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 28 May 2018 11:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. >>> I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ? 23:43, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into the letter: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if there is PC support. Thanks very much! >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like policy. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board agenda for 30 May. >>>>>> >>>>>> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the growth there is because the community directed the organisation to undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>>>>>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >>>>>>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > www.ymca.gm > http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > [www,insistglobal.com](http://www.itag.gm) > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon May 28 14:16:04 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:16:04 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP Membership Composition Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the comments and insights, David- While I am broadly in favour of open, bottom-up, participatory processes, the numbers are not really in our favour here though. What I like about the CCWG-Light model, for instance, is that it caps the participation of other, well-resourced stakeholder groups. I think it would be manageable for us to find three active participants, but probably not many more than that, whereas other stakeholder groups might be able to get 100 paralegals onto a call. As for leadership composition, I tend to think we need an external facilitator (i.e. a trade negotiator) to chair the ePDP, and would not think it would be manageable to have a leadership team with representation from all stakeholder groups. That might work in the traditional GNSO PDPs, but I'm worried it won't work here, where we only have 3 1/2 months to get a first draft of a report together. But I'm open to ideas! There are also likely to be budgetary constraints, though what budget we are actually working with is unclear, as are the working methods of this ePDP. It would not surprise me if there was at least one face-to-face, however. Finally, I liked the idea which Stephanie suggested of the ePDP having an independent mediator to facilitate resolving conflicts, too. -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 28 May 2018 12:15 PM, David Cake wrote: > I don?t like option 6. It sets a bad precedent for a lot of reasons, and it might give us some temporary leverage but I think it has many disadvantages, including some for the the pro-privacy advocacy side. I broadly agree with most of the issues Rafik brings up. > > I think the CCWG model is a reasonable choice, though its a compromise in many ways. Our biggest asset is the strength of our arguments, and having our strongest advocates (especially, but not only, Stephanie) always able to participate in relevant discussion is vital for us. > > If we do go for something more like a standard PDP model, or a more open CCWG, I would strongly advise from our RDS experience that 1) the leadership team that represented all SGs was a very useful model and 2) such a leadership team should be more empowered to control process by consensus decision, and to control participants if they are not constructive. I also think that the rules in the charter of the RDS WG that restricted the extent to which we could separate into sub-teams were very unhelpful, and the RDS could have made a lot more progress if we were able to push some issues into small sub-teams that could deep dive on some tricky issues - and then have the leadership restrict the extent to which those issues could be revisited by people who had no new arguments but just wished to revisit previous ones more forcefully. > I also think that a large amount of ?parallelisation? of the process, while it presents challenges in an area where there is a lot of interconnectedness between issues, is really the only practical way to get all the work needed done. So I?d argue for a larger group, with the ability for multiple sub-teams. I also think that while the small number of participants is a natural reaction the problem of the RDS WG, putting the entire responsibility of the process onto a small number of people, especially ones who already have other responsibilities, is a recipe for burnout and disaster. > > I?m not entirely giving up on the straight PDP model, but the RDS WG certainly showed some of its flaws fairly harshly. > > David > >> On 28 May 2018, at 6:52 am, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks, Ayden for the document. >> one problem with option 6 is that the council composition will change with the election for the different groups. another issue is that doesn't take into consideration the expertise expected for this topic and may put more workload on the council. the council was more involved in policy doing before but that was found problematic and that is why we got this separation between policy making and policy management. Moreover, the council leadership itself will change as Heather and Donna are term-limited and we have no idea who will replace them. >> >> I think most of the options take into account the composition issue and try to resolve it based on the experience from RDS WG. I think the CCWG minus (should be renamed as CCWG can be misleading) can be acceptable allowing us to appoint our experts who can commit time and focus on the issue. I understand we can argue about the number of representatives and the right size for the group (what can be the right number for "small"?)but at the end what matters is being consistent in term of participation from our side and being strategical. >> no idea what can be an option 7 and how much we can be creative. it may be even counter-productive without knowing other SG/C reactions. Anyway, everything is open for now. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 03:38, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>> So on our recent PC call, Farzaneh suggested that we create a spreadsheet and list the positives and negatives of all of the different ePDP composition options. I've created a Google Doc now, and would encourage you to help populate it with more positive/negatives. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X0aPWrZHzRNRoZgwByDK-NdzE9E-R8HddbD2pVJVBx0/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> I like Option 6 (Committee of the Whole); I think that would work well for us, in terms of representation - except that we lose Stephanie in a few months, as she is term limited on the Council, and we would therefore lose our most powerful voice on this topic. >>> >>> But, above are the options, and we can even propose an Option 7... >>> >>> 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 dave at davecake.net Tue May 29 07:22:32 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 12:22:32 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP Membership Composition Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On 28 May 2018, at 7:16 pm, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks for the comments and insights, David- > > While I am broadly in favour of open, bottom-up, participatory processes, the numbers are not really in our favour here though. What I like about the CCWG-Light model, for instance, is that it caps the participation of other, well-resourced stakeholder groups. I think it would be manageable for us to find three active participants, but probably not many more than that, whereas other stakeholder groups might be able to get 100 paralegals onto a call. I think getting drawn into evaluating models on short term tactical advantage is seldom helpful. If the IPC feel they aren?t getting heard in the WG, they?ll try other avenues. Better to pull them into a process fully, and beat them on arguments. > As for leadership composition, I tend to think we need an external facilitator (i.e. a trade negotiator) to chair the ePDP, and would not think it would be manageable to have a leadership team with representation from all stakeholder groups. That might work in the traditional GNSO PDPs, but I'm worried it won't work here, where we only have 3 1/2 months to get a first draft of a report together. But I'm open to ideas! I think an external facilitator would be helpful, but I don?t think we are likely to end up with one from within ICANN processes, or that the community would trust an outsider being imposed. A larger (but still manageably small) leadership team doesn?t slow things down, it speeds things up. And it is easier to negotiate. > There are also likely to be budgetary constraints, though what budget we are actually working with is unclear, as are the working methods of this ePDP. It would not surprise me if there was at least one face-to-face, however. True, and I absolutely think we aren?t going to get a lot of observers etc to any inter-sessional. > > Finally, I liked the idea which Stephanie suggested of the ePDP having an independent mediator to facilitate resolving conflicts, too. I think it is a good idea. David > > -Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 28 May 2018 12:15 PM, David Cake wrote: > >> I don?t like option 6. It sets a bad precedent for a lot of reasons, and it might give us some temporary leverage but I think it has many disadvantages, including some for the the pro-privacy advocacy side. I broadly agree with most of the issues Rafik brings up. >> >> I think the CCWG model is a reasonable choice, though its a compromise in many ways. Our biggest asset is the strength of our arguments, and having our strongest advocates (especially, but not only, Stephanie) always able to participate in relevant discussion is vital for us. >> >> If we do go for something more like a standard PDP model, or a more open CCWG, I would strongly advise from our RDS experience that 1) the leadership team that represented all SGs was a very useful model and 2) such a leadership team should be more empowered to control process by consensus decision, and to control participants if they are not constructive. I also think that the rules in the charter of the RDS WG that restricted the extent to which we could separate into sub-teams were very unhelpful, and the RDS could have made a lot more progress if we were able to push some issues into small sub-teams that could deep dive on some tricky issues - and then have the leadership restrict the extent to which those issues could be revisited by people who had no new arguments but just wished to revisit previous ones more forcefully. >> I also think that a large amount of ?parallelisation? of the process, while it presents challenges in an area where there is a lot of interconnectedness between issues, is really the only practical way to get all the work needed done. So I?d argue for a larger group, with the ability for multiple sub-teams. I also think that while the small number of participants is a natural reaction the problem of the RDS WG, putting the entire responsibility of the process onto a small number of people, especially ones who already have other responsibilities, is a recipe for burnout and disaster. >> >> I?m not entirely giving up on the straight PDP model, but the RDS WG certainly showed some of its flaws fairly harshly. >> >> David >> >> >> >>> On 28 May 2018, at 6:52 am, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thanks, Ayden for the document. >>> one problem with option 6 is that the council composition will change with the election for the different groups. another issue is that doesn't take into consideration the expertise expected for this topic and may put more workload on the council. the council was more involved in policy doing before but that was found problematic and that is why we got this separation between policy making and policy management. Moreover, the council leadership itself will change as Heather and Donna are term-limited and we have no idea who will replace them. >>> >>> I think most of the options take into account the composition issue and try to resolve it based on the experience from RDS WG. I think the CCWG minus (should be renamed as CCWG can be misleading) can be acceptable allowing us to appoint our experts who can commit time and focus on the issue. I understand we can argue about the number of representatives and the right size for the group (what can be the right number for "small"?)but at the end what matters is being consistent in term of participation from our side and being strategical. >>> no idea what can be an option 7 and how much we can be creative. it may be even counter-productive without knowing other SG/C reactions. Anyway, everything is open for now. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 03:38, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : >>> So on our recent PC call, Farzaneh suggested that we create a spreadsheet and list the positives and negatives of all of the different ePDP composition options. I've created a Google Doc now, and would encourage you to help populate it with more positive/negatives. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X0aPWrZHzRNRoZgwByDK-NdzE9E-R8HddbD2pVJVBx0/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> I like Option 6 (Committee of the Whole); I think that would work well for us, in terms of representation - except that we lose Stephanie in a few months, as she is term limited on the Council, and we would therefore lose our most powerful voice on this topic. >>> >>> But, above are the options, and we can even propose an Option 7... >>> >>> 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: -------------- 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 May 29 11:19:49 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 17:19:49 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, we have till today 23:59UTC. If you have any objection or comment, if there is none, the letter will be sent. Best, Rafik Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 18:18, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. > I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ? 23:43, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into >> the letter: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it >> and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would >> be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if >> there is PC support. Thanks very much! >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same >> problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever >> support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal >> year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years >> with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one >> suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like >> policy. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic >>> tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board >>> agenda for 30 May. >>> >>> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the >>> growth there is because the community directed the organisation to >>> undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake >>> these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% >>> (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think >>> about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important >>> and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural >>> and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I >>> think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board >>>> before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider >>>> reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra >>>> $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as >>>> has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do >>>> use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the >>>> entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days >>>> to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + >>>> per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional >>>> has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>>> >>>> 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 Tue May 29 12:36:49 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 05:36:49 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik. This is on the Board's agenda for their [meeting tomorrow](https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2018-05-30-en), so, if there is support for submitting it, I hope we will be able to circulate the comment with enough time for members of the Board to be able to reviews its contents. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 29 May 2018 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > we have till today 23:59UTC. If you have any objection or comment, if there is none, the letter will be sent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 18:18, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. >> I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ? 23:43, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>> Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into the letter: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if there is PC support. Thanks very much! >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like policy. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board agenda for 30 May. >>>>> >>>>> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the growth there is because the community directed the organisation to undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>>>>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >>>>>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue May 29 12:57:22 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 05:57:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's a good letter and (and as an observer) I support its rapid transmission to the Board. Best, Kathy On 5/29/2018 5:36 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks, Rafik. This is on the Board's agenda for their meeting > tomorrow > , > so, if there is support for submitting it, I hope we will be able to > circulate the comment with enough time for members of the Board to be > able to reviews its contents. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 29 May 2018 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> we have till today 23:59UTC. If you have any objection or comment, if >> there is none, the letter will be sent. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le?lun. 28 mai 2018 ??18:18, Rafik Dammak > > a ?crit?: >> >> Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. >> I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?dim. 27 mai 2018 ??23:43, Ayden F?rdeline > > a ?crit?: >> >> Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted >> your text into the letter: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone >> please review it and suggest edits? The Board is set to >> review the Budget on 30 May so would be great to get this out >> tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if there is PC >> support. Thanks very much! >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face >>> the same problems in next years and there is no so much left >>> to cut from whatever support directed to the community. the >>> issue is not just the new fiscal year budget but a whole >>> structural change in ICANN for the coming years with regard >>> to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is >>> one suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of >>> high priority like policy. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le?ven. 25 mai 2018 ??01:25, Ayden F?rdeline >>> > a ?crit?: >>> >>> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter >>> on this topic tonight, and we'll need to review this >>> quickly, as it is on the Board agenda for 30 May. >>> >>> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's >>> response that the growth there is because the community >>> directed the organisation to undertake certain >>> activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake >>> these activities, but I guess it was implied. And >>> salaries rising 2% (broadly in line with inflation) is >>> not unreasonable. Will need to think about how we >>> address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should >>>> focus on important and big issues on the budget as the >>>> cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic >>>> issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human >>>> resources. I think we can make a better argument by >>>> highlighting that instead. >>>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le?mer. 23 mai 2018 ??05:14, Ayden F?rdeline >>>> > a >>>> ?crit?: >>>> >>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this >>>> time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, >>>> asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP >>>> to 100% of its original size (cost implications - >>>> extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to >>>> include support for the IGF as has been the case in >>>> the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do >>>> use this resource very well, and it can't cost more >>>> than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the >>>> Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 >>>> days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 >>>> extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in >>>> recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has >>>> been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed >>>> than usual? >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue May 29 17:14:54 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 14:14:54 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <20180529141452.5750868.88769.100167@mail.utoronto.ca> Me too, go for it. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. From: Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 05:58 To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? It's a good letter and (and as an observer) I support its rapid transmission to the Board. Best, Kathy On 5/29/2018 5:36 AM, Ayden F??rdeline wrote: Thanks, Rafik. This is on the Board's agenda for their meeting tomorrow, so, if there is support for submitting it, I hope we will be able to circulate the comment with enough time for members of the Board to be able to reviews its contents. Ayden ?\?\?\?\?\?\?\ Original Message ?\?\?\?\?\?\?\ On 29 May 2018 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, we have till today 23:59UTC. If you have any objection or comment, if there is none, the letter will be sent. Best, Rafik Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ?? 18:18, Rafik Dammak > a ??crit : Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. Best, Rafik Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ?? 23:43, Ayden F??rdeline > a ??crit : Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into the letter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if there is PC support. Thanks very much! Ayden ?\?\?\?\?\?\?\ Original Message ?\?\?\?\?\?\?\ On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Ayden, I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like policy. Best, Rafik Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ?? 01:25, Ayden F??rdeline > a ??crit : Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board agenda for 30 May. The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the growth there is because the community directed the organisation to undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? Ayden ?\?\?\?\?\?\?\ Original Message ?\?\?\?\?\?\?\ On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi, thanks, Ayden for the summary. I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. the budget approval is scheduled for next week. Best, Rafik Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ?? 05:14, Ayden F??rdeline > a ??crit : Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? Ayden _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is [X]https://lists.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 Tue May 29 20:43:10 2018 From: t.tropina at mpicc.de (Dr. Tatiana Tropina) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:43:10 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: <20180529141452.5750868.88769.100167@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20180529141452.5750868.88769.100167@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5c13fa8b-3814-3027-d549-dd5311721f70@mpicc.de> landing my support, too. Tanya On 29/05/18 16:14, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Me too, go for it. > > Sent?from?my?BlackBerry?10?smartphone?on?the?Bell?network. > *From: *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent: *Tuesday, May 29, 2018 05:58 > *To: *ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > *Subject: *Re: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? > > > It's a good letter and (and as an observer) I support its rapid > transmission to the Board. > > Best, Kathy > > > On 5/29/2018 5:36 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> Thanks, Rafik. This is on the Board's agenda for their meeting >> tomorrow >> , >> so, if there is support for submitting it, I hope we will be able to >> circulate the comment with enough time for members of the Board to be >> able to reviews its contents. >> >> Ayden? >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 29 May 2018 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have till today 23:59UTC. If you have any objection or comment, >>> if there is none, the letter will be sent. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> Le?lun. 28 mai 2018 ??18:18, Rafik Dammak >> > a ?crit?: >>> >>> Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. >>> I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le?dim. 27 mai 2018 ??23:43, Ayden F?rdeline >>> > a ?crit?: >>> >>> Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted >>> your text into the letter: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone >>> please review it and suggest edits? The Board is set to >>> review the Budget on 30 May so would be great to get this >>> out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if there is >>> PC support. Thanks very much! >>> >>> Ayden?? >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> I think we point that without fixing that issue we will >>>> face the same problems in next years and there is no so >>>> much left to cut from whatever support directed to the >>>> community. the issue is not just the new fiscal year budget >>>> but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years >>>> with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. >>>> redeployment is one suggestion as we can reallocate staff >>>> to the areas of high priority like policy. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le?ven. 25 mai 2018 ??01:25, Ayden F?rdeline >>>> > a ?crit?: >>>> >>>> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter >>>> on this topic tonight, and we'll need to review this >>>> quickly, as it is on the Board agenda for 30 May. >>>> >>>> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's >>>> response that the growth there is because the community >>>> directed the organisation to undertake certain >>>> activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake >>>> these activities, but I guess it was implied. And >>>> salaries rising 2% (broadly in line with inflation) is >>>> not unreasonable. Will need to think about how we >>>> address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >>>> >>>> Ayden?? >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>>>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should >>>>> focus on important and big issues on the budget as the >>>>> cuts are not addressing the structural and systemic >>>>> issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human >>>>> resources. I think we can make a better argument by >>>>> highlighting that instead. >>>>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le?mer. 23 mai 2018 ??05:14, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> > a >>>>> ?crit?: >>>>> >>>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this >>>>> time to the Board before it adopts the new Budget, >>>>> asking that they kindly consider reinstating CROP >>>>> to 100% of its original size (cost implications - >>>>> extra $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to >>>>> include support for the IGF as has been the case >>>>> in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; >>>>> we do use this resource very well, and it can't >>>>> cost more than $10,000 for the entire GNSO), and >>>>> expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from >>>>> 2 days to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max >>>>> $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + per diem for 21 >>>>> people) in recognition of the fact that the >>>>> Intersessional has been discontinued so the agenda >>>>> will be more packed than usual? >>>>> >>>>> 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 raquino at gmail.com Tue May 29 21:14:22 2018 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:14:22 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] questions to ICANN CEO tomorrow Message-ID: Sorry for the short notice of the reminder but please if you have any points or questions to ICANN CEO tomorrow send them Being the last probable chat w/ Constituencies NCUC can also follow up on stones left unturned, if there are any Best, Renata -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 30 01:47:14 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 07:47:14 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG policy call prior to extraordinary council call Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 30 03:54:23 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 09:54:23 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? In-Reply-To: <5c13fa8b-3814-3027-d549-dd5311721f70@mpicc.de> References: <20180529141452.5750868.88769.100167@mail.utoronto.ca> <5c13fa8b-3814-3027-d549-dd5311721f70@mpicc.de> Message-ID: Hi, as there was no objection, the letter is considered as approved by PC and sent to board. thanks. Best, Rafik Le mer. 30 mai 2018 ? 02:43, Dr. Tatiana Tropina a ?crit : > landing my support, too. > > Tanya > > On 29/05/18 16:14, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Me too, go for it. > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. > *From: *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent: *Tuesday, May 29, 2018 05:58 > *To: *ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > *Subject: *Re: [NCSG-PC] New letter to Board re: Budget? > > It's a good letter and (and as an observer) I support its rapid > transmission to the Board. > > Best, Kathy > > On 5/29/2018 5:36 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks, Rafik. This is on the Board's agenda for their meeting tomorrow > , > so, if there is support for submitting it, I hope we will be able to > circulate the comment with enough time for members of the Board to be able > to reviews its contents. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 29 May 2018 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > we have till today 23:59UTC. If you have any objection or comment, if > there is none, the letter will be sent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Le lun. 28 mai 2018 ? 18:18, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Thanks, Ayden, asking everyone to do the review quickly. >> I also think the letter should be shared in NCSG list for info. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 27 mai 2018 ? 23:43, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Thanks Rafik, good point. I pretty much copied and pasted your text into >>> the letter: >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fZfD2qc_ksPpSDOZ_oVnf54lWl8pi8TPb6SGPDw27YM/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Sorry not to get this prepared sooner, but can everyone please review it >>> and suggest edits? The Board is set to review the Budget on 30 May so would >>> be great to get this out tomorrow - or Tuesday at the very latest - if >>> there is PC support. Thanks very much! >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 25 May 2018 1:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I think we point that without fixing that issue we will face the same >>> problems in next years and there is no so much left to cut from whatever >>> support directed to the community. the issue is not just the new fiscal >>> year budget but a whole structural change in ICANN for the coming years >>> with regard to human resources e.g. resizing gradually. redeployment is one >>> suggestion as we can reallocate staff to the areas of high priority like >>> policy. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 25 mai 2018 ? 01:25, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Thanks all for the comments. I'll work on a new letter on this topic >>>> tonight, and we'll need to review this quickly, as it is on the Board >>>> agenda for 30 May. >>>> >>>> The HR point is difficult because I do take Xavier's response that the >>>> growth there is because the community directed the organisation to >>>> undertake certain activities. Sure, we never said hire staff to undertake >>>> these activities, but I guess it was implied. And salaries rising 2% >>>> (broadly in line with inflation) is not unreasonable. Will need to think >>>> about how we address this, i.e. re-deploy staff vertically? >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 24 May 2018 8:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> thanks, Ayden for the summary. >>>> I think with regard to the letter to board we should focus on important >>>> and big issues on the budget as the cuts are not addressing the structural >>>> and systemic issues i.e. big part of the budget is for human resources. I >>>> think we can make a better argument by highlighting that instead. >>>> the budget approval is scheduled for next week. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le mer. 23 mai 2018 ? 05:14, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Is there any point in writing a new letter, this time to the Board >>>>> before it adopts the new Budget, asking that they kindly consider >>>>> reinstating CROP to 100% of its original size (cost implications - extra >>>>> $50,000), increase ABR envelope modestly to include support for the IGF as >>>>> has been the case in the past (conditional on workshop acceptance; we do >>>>> use this resource very well, and it can't cost more than $10,000 for the >>>>> entire GNSO), and expand the Council Strategic Planning Session from 2 days >>>>> to 3 days (cost implication, I'd guess max $5,000 for 1 extra night hotel + >>>>> per diem for 21 people) in recognition of the fact that the Intersessional >>>>> has been discontinued so the agenda will be more packed than usual? >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 30 11:04:20 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 04:04:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Accred-Model] Philly Special 2.0 In-Reply-To: <03f501d3f7d3$e00461a0$a00d24e0$@palage.com> References: <03f501d3f7d3$e00461a0$a00d24e0$@palage.com> Message-ID: <3cL71-nx63eGjZ19S-lXyOC0A3p2L9HNzqrv5dZv-F9JSMjD2vCY-RiDNY16VpSuHfzBndFtKfGtncsUaPPQG81yi4Yl46hu9T6taE-rtPQ=@ferdeline.com> From the accreditation list. Very interesting proposal... -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 30 May 2018 7:05 AM, Michael Palage wrote: > Hello All, > > The list has been rather silent so I thought I would share the next iteration of my proposed differential access (aka tiered) model. Unfortunately ICANN has required Registration Authorities in the Temporary Specification to provide access to Legitimate Interest users but has provided little to no thought leadership on how to move forward with that demand. > > As noted previously, my model defers to the hard work that others on this list have done on establishing the credentials for accreditation bodies. I instead have focus on market dynamics, governance and Registrant administrative remedies. > > In addition to this policy/governance framework document, I have also drafted an Registrant Data Access Agreement which I will be posting shortly. This is designed to be a standard agreement by with Legitimate Interest Users can enter into with Registration Authorities to access their non-public Registrant data. > > The only other missing piece which I have started work on this week, is the proposed ADR rules by which Data Subjects will be able to initiate a claim against a Legitimate Interest User which they believe has exceeded the scope of their legitimate use. > > With these three components, there will exist an entire eco-system for a new differentiated (tiered) access model. In the spirit of the GDPR this is a Privacy by Design model that is centered on placing the rights of the Data Subject at the apex of that hierarchy, as opposed to the current model where the Data Subject?s fundamental human rights are all too often collateral damage to other commercial interests. > > As always I welcome any feedback. > > Best regards, > > Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Access-Model-Philly-Special-Ver-2.0.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 125751 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 30 11:09:40 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 04:09:40 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG policy call prior to extraordinary council call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9Ib0rkeKHjZl_ClAf4bcOjpMURm6rB0S0SrKxT3b-XnXVsj8Zfcjop703rury49cH2cpZk42IDVTqjiym4b5cpam3ptv2IGUQeYDa6t84Dk=@ferdeline.com> Good idea, Rafik. 11th at our usual time would work for me. -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 30 May 2018 12:47 AM, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed May 30 12:01:33 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 11:01:33 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG policy call prior to extraordinary council call In-Reply-To: <9Ib0rkeKHjZl_ClAf4bcOjpMURm6rB0S0SrKxT3b-XnXVsj8Zfcjop703rury49cH2cpZk42IDVTqjiym4b5cpam3ptv2IGUQeYDa6t84Dk=@ferdeline.com> References: <9Ib0rkeKHjZl_ClAf4bcOjpMURm6rB0S0SrKxT3b-XnXVsj8Zfcjop703rury49cH2cpZk42IDVTqjiym4b5cpam3ptv2IGUQeYDa6t84Dk=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Rafik, I think that day will work for me as well. Please do confirm the time ------------------------ **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 ) 2018-05-30 10:09 GMT+02:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Good idea, Rafik. 11th at our usual time would work for me. > > -Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 30 May 2018 12:47 AM, 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 30 12:05:23 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 18:05:23 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG policy call prior to extraordinary council call In-Reply-To: References: <9Ib0rkeKHjZl_ClAf4bcOjpMURm6rB0S0SrKxT3b-XnXVsj8Zfcjop703rury49cH2cpZk42IDVTqjiym4b5cpam3ptv2IGUQeYDa6t84Dk=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, You will receive invitation with details asap. Time will be 12:00UTC Best, Rafik On Wed, May 30, 2018, 6:01 PM Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Rafik, I think that day will work for me as well. > Please do confirm the time > > ------------------------ > **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 > ) > > 2018-05-30 10:09 GMT+02:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > >> Good idea, Rafik. 11th at our usual time would work for me. >> >> -Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 30 May 2018 12:47 AM, 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 icann at ferdeline.com Wed May 30 19:20:01 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 12:20:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [governance] Update from today's MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6zHWEoT8CB7sbKX_vhGm3tkxGGJLShQoLunpVtS8HELu45NPjmUICoX73pwDAARTOHKgxqVXSuX-3yJ2gVy2iYpRoDaz5NzezvkiMVRsqEU=@ferdeline.com> Given the below update on the compressed nature of this year's IGF, we might not want to submit too many IGF workshop proposals, especially competing ones. - Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 30 May 2018 3:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ?? > > Although there still hasn't been a formal U.N. announcement, > > nevertheless it is informally confirmed that the IGF this year will be > > held in Paris this 12-14 November. That's right, it will be a three-day > > meeting, rather than a four-day meeting. This means that the workshop > > selection process will be much stricter than usual, because there are > > simply fewer slots available for workshops. It also means that there > > will only be three available three-hour slots for main sessions > > (excluding the opening and closing ceremonies). > > If you have any other questions, please let me know. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > > Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek > > echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '!-~' 'P-~!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - > > -- > > To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > > List help: https://riseup.net/lists From icann at ferdeline.com Thu May 31 10:33:33 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 03:33:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Public Comments] Call for Volunteers for Draft Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0Mj42XnRb_X0zGP46d_1kyPiHALh3OLIBKU0ru6kAO3JwyhL3Wctz-Cx0pcfFMvl9LZ7MsJSuyTq9SMtr8jFFVqlRH9-k0AvnlEj-KXFrYA=@ferdeline.com> Taking this to the PC list- I will work on responding to this; the proposed revisions are inadequate and address none of the concerns that we and others raised. It is my impression that these guidelines were written prior to that sham consultation being carried out back in January, as this document does not even analyse or refer back to the inputs received. So disappointing and disrespectful of our time. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 31 May 2018 1:57 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > ICANN published today a new public comment regarding draft community travel support guidelines. This a continuation of previous consultation. It concerns basically the travel support provided to community and possible changes. > > You can find the background and more details here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/travel-support-guidelines-2018-05-30-en . I created a google doc here to kick-off the discussion https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit. > > Please let me know offlist if you want to volunteer for the drafting. It is good to have several people to volunteer together and work as team so they can share the burden. I will support you during the drafting, > > You can find previous public comment submitted by NCSG here https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 and listing those who drafted them. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik Dammak > > NCSG Policy Committee Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu May 31 10:50:53 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 16:50:53 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] publi comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu May 31 10:59:36 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 16:59:36 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Public Comments] Call for Volunteers for Draft Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: <0Mj42XnRb_X0zGP46d_1kyPiHALh3OLIBKU0ru6kAO3JwyhL3Wctz-Cx0pcfFMvl9LZ7MsJSuyTq9SMtr8jFFVqlRH9-k0AvnlEj-KXFrYA=@ferdeline.com> References: <0Mj42XnRb_X0zGP46d_1kyPiHALh3OLIBKU0ru6kAO3JwyhL3Wctz-Cx0pcfFMvl9LZ7MsJSuyTq9SMtr8jFFVqlRH9-k0AvnlEj-KXFrYA=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: thanks for volunteering, added you as penholder Rafik Le jeu. 31 mai 2018 ? 16:33, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Taking this to the PC list- > > I will work on responding to this; the proposed revisions are inadequate > and address *none* of the concerns that we *and others* raised. > > It is my impression that these guidelines were written prior to that sham > consultation being carried out back in January, as this document does not > even analyse or refer back to the inputs received. So disappointing and > disrespectful of our time. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 31 May 2018 1:57 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > ICANN published today a new public comment regarding draft community > travel support guidelines. This a continuation of previous consultation. It > concerns basically the travel support provided to community and possible > changes. > > You can find the background and more details here > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/travel-support-guidelines-2018-05-30-en > . I created a google doc here to kick-off the discussion > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit > . > > Please let me know offlist if you want to volunteer for the drafting. It > is good to have several people to volunteer together and work as team so > they can share the burden. I will support you during the drafting, > > You can find previous public comment submitted by NCSG here > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 and > listing those who drafted them. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik Dammak > > NCSG Policy Committee Chair > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC 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 May 31 11:14:00 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 04:14:00 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] publi comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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: