From dave Fri Feb 8 11:01:10 2019 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:01:10 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG EPDP] Fwd: [TSG-Access-RD] Notes from TSG-Access-RD Meeting #4 - 22 Jan 2019 In-Reply-To: References: <2D87D2BD-30F5-4909-BFB6-E48AD3E4ED87@icann.org> <6fa12b2f-0963-fb23-0437-724fadd4cea7@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <328E9943-F2DC-4F15-A2C3-10F703944687@davecake.net> Anything about how authentication is provided (eg is it federated or centralised) is particularly policy relevant, anything that concerns which data is provided to who is relevant. David > On 24 Jan 2019, at 7:23 am, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > That is a good question Tomslin....I will ask the geekier ones when I see a policy issue creeping in that raises questions about the tech solution being pursued. Hopefully, we can mutually inform on issues as they arise. > > cheers Stephanie > > > > On 2019-01-23 02:19, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: >> Hi Stephanie, all, >> >> I was thinking, to make volunteering to sign up to that mailing list more effective, and to get others not actively participating in the EPDP to help, perhaps the policy committee/epdp team should define what the geeky person should look out for/expectations from the technical discussions. Just a thought. >> >> Cheers, >> Tomslin >> >> On Wed., 23 Jan. 2019, 13:47 Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> I have signed up for this mailing list....I strongly suggest that someone a lot geekier than I am also sign up and take a look. >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [TSG-Access-RD] Notes from TSG-Access-RD Meeting #4 - 22 Jan 2019 >> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:58:24 +0000 >> From: Diana Middleton >> To: Technical Study Group RD >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> See below for notes from meeting #4. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. >> >> >> Best, >> >> Diana >> >> >> ************************** >> >> >> Technical Study Group on Access to Non-Public Registration Data >> >> Meeting #4 >> >> 22 January 2019 >> >> 0900 PST / 1200 EST / 1700 UTC >> >> >> Attendees: Jorge Cano, Tomofumi Okubo, Steve Crocker, Andy Newton, Gavin Brown, Scott Hollenbeck, Jody Kolker, Murray Kucherawy, Diana Middleton, Eleeza Agopian, John Crain, Francisco Arias, Yvette Guigneaux, Gustavo Lozano >> >> >> Apologies: Benedict Addis, Ram Mohan >> >> >> During this call we discussed the following items (see attached summary from Gustavo): >> >> ? Review of requirements from homework assignments >> ? Brief discussion of memo sent to EPDP re: independent controllership >> >> Below is a list of action items from the meeting: >> >> ? Merge items from homework assignments ? Andy/Scott >> ? Obtain clarification of memo - Eleeza >> ? Review notes from January?s F2F for accuracy ? Entire group (see attached) >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EPDP mailing list >> EPDP at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/epdp > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Feb 1 04:33:44 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:33:44 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent for review] Proposed Comment on the Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a3241ec-6b58-3268-19e8-ce0256deaafa@mail.utoronto.ca> I think this is a great, very thorough comment. I made quite a few grammatical comments, but very little of substance.Please check to make sure I understood the point correctly....sometimes it was not clear, no doubt due to the technical nature of the discussion. Great work, thanks! Stephanie On 2019-01-31 00:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: Thanks Tatiana and Ayden, looking for other PC members to review. Rafik Le jeu. 31 janv. 2019 ? 08:26, Tatiana Tropina > a ?crit : My support for submission and my thanks to Bruna and everyone who drafted it, too. Cheers, Tanya On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 00:17, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: I support the submission of this comment; thanks to Bruna et al for drafting it! Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 6:48 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi all, we have this draft comment to review quickly , regarding WT5 initial report. it is a critical track in subpro WG. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bruna Martins dos Santos > Date: mar. 29 janv. 2019 ? 20:35 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Comment on the Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report To: > Dear all, I would like to share with you the proposed comment to the Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. Submissions are due in just over three days time (feb 1st as a deadline), so I?m sharing this on our mailing list today for your speedy review and suggested edits. The proposed comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EyQ_D37jbIpKByOyknOVwrBO0-GLKVdyFI_64_s2l9U/edit Ps. Thanks to Farzaneh and all the others who volunteered to work on this comment. Best, -- Bruna Martins dos Santos Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 19:46:35 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:46:35 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [urgent for review] Proposed Comment on the Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, As I see several expression of support and no objection, the comment can be considered as endorsed. I will submit it by the deadline (but tidying it up before) Best, Rafik On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 20:48 Rafik Dammak Hi all, > > we have this draft comment to review quickly , regarding WT5 initial > report. > it is a critical track in subpro WG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Bruna Martins dos Santos > Date: mar. 29 janv. 2019 ? 20:35 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Comment on the Geographic Names at the > Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report > To: > > > Dear all, > > I would like to share with you the proposed comment to the *Work Track 5 > on Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report of the > New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. *Submissions > are due in just over three days time (feb 1st as a deadline), so I?m > sharing this on our mailing list today for your speedy review and suggested > edits. > > The proposed comment can be found here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EyQ_D37jbIpKByOyknOVwrBO0-GLKVdyFI_64_s2l9U/edit > > Ps. Thanks to Farzaneh and all the others who volunteered to work on this > comment. > > Best, > -- > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > > Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos > @boomartins > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 00:37:04 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 07:37:04 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Reminder] public comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, this is a reminder regarding the comments review for this week. Best, Rafik Le mar. 29 janv. 2019 ? 08:06, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > we have 2 drafts for public comments, being reviewed by NCSG members but > we should review them as PC too due to time constraint: > > - ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 ? 2025 , deadline 8th > Feb, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTfrDKosnig9hVghrlWr--znKSK5acVALJgaeeip5nU/edit > - ICANN FY20 budget and operating plan, 11th Feb, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AniE-6_-i4-CAUGtJwgFA1gLaWzWHkBfWAHQ3Y-PvZs/edit?usp=sharing > > > please start the review. > > Best, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Feb 4 21:38:27 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:38:27 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Hi folks, as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in 30 days earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please councillors, let me know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so that we can select a substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if you wish to attend ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 From: Terri Agnew To: Stephanie Perrin , Maryam Bakoshi CC: gnso-secs at icann.org Dear all, In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Friday, 22 February 2019. A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting funded traveler lists are due 120 days prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days prior). Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting: * Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. * Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. * Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. * Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. * Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in advance. * Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. Please note: * GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. * All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy. Should you have any questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may contact us at privacy at icann.org. Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel. 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Sunday, 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. Many thanks for your cooperation! With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew at icann.org Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 21:43:50 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 16:43:50 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <0194D475-3F0F-426E-9F19-68D6B4FEC05F@gmail.com> Steph, I have no reason to believe I can?t make it to Marrakesh, so I will be there. If anything changes in the next five months of course I will let you know as soon as possible. Best, Mart?n > On 4 Feb 2019, at 16:38, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Hi folks, as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in 30 days earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please councillors, let me know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so that we can select a substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if you wish to attend ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. > > cheers Stephanie > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 > Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 > From: Terri Agnew > To: Stephanie Perrin , Maryam Bakoshi > CC: gnso-secs at icann.org > > Dear all, > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Friday, 22 February 2019. > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting funded traveler lists are due 120 days prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days prior). > > Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting: > Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. > Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. > Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in advance. > Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. > > > Please note: > GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy . Should you have any questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may contact us at privacy at icann.org . > > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel. > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Sunday, 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019 > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > With kind regards, > Terri > --- > Terri Agnew > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Email: terri.agnew at icann.org > Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages?[gnso.icann.org] > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO?[twitter.com] > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/?[facebook.com] > http://gnso.icann.org/en/?[gnso.icann.org] > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 21:45:19 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:45:19 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Hi Steph, thanks a lot! I am planning to attend, so you can submit my name. Cheers, Tanya On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 20:38, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Hi folks, as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in > 30 days earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please > councillors, let me know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so > that we can select a substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if > you wish to attend ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. > > cheers Stephanie > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers > Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 > Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 > From: Terri Agnew > To: Stephanie Perrin > , Maryam Bakoshi > > CC: gnso-secs at icann.org > > Dear all, > > > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a timely > fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to > gnso-secs at icann.org by *Friday, 22 February 2019. * > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC > review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed > reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting *funded traveler lists are due 120 > days* prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days prior). > > > > *Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting:* > > - Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight > confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. > - Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their > visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > - Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa > (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > - Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. > - Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in > advance. > - Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with > Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. > > > > Please note: > > - GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation > funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please *DO NOT* > book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > - All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing > travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed > in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy > . Should you have any questions > or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may > contact us at privacy at icann.org. > > > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of > fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the > following into consideration: > > > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming > travel. > > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make > sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel > team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by > case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day > deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel > as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa > issues. > > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours > and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN > meeting venue. > > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is *Sunday, > 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019* > > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done > at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN > hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not refund > or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a > replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel > their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their > reservation. > > > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > > > With kind regards, > > *Terri * > > * ---* > > *Terri Agnew* > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org > > *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] > > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] > > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > [facebook.com] > > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 4 21:46:30 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 19:46:30 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <31VEMn1JPy5q1DzMS_dF1E-pVsVCHkRLQG8hoOlypHflHX8CfcamHHX8yCyWWa_HHqH5i008_L_SoVu_w3fsc180waaVF2OsJjYKoFNpvco=@ferdeline.com> Wow, they want names so early now! I plan to be in Marrakech Best wishes, Ayden On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 20:38, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Hi folks, as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in 30 days earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please councillors, let me know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so that we can select a substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if you wish to attend ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. > > cheers Stephanie > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 > Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 > From: Terri Agnew [](mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org) > To: Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), Maryam Bakoshi [](mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) > CC: gnso-secs at icann.org [](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org) > > Dear all, > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Friday, 22 February 2019. > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting funded traveler lists are due 120 days prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days prior). > > Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting: > > - Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. > > - Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > > - Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > > - Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. > > - Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in advance. > > - Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. > > Please note: > > - GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > > - All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed in accordance with the [ICANN Privacy Policy](https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy). Should you have any questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may contact us at privacy at icann.org. > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel. > > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. > > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. > > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Sunday, 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019 > > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > With kind regards, > > Terri > > --- > > Terri Agnew > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: terri.agnew at icann.org > > Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=8SZpUEHa34PHHbVn-bMiDEyGX2ZTL2ZlwRYjELwAWlA&s=gLQlBoUP4A9PKQ_d-b7umxAWP5TaoaduSSCtRCOQo5o&e=) > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=8SZpUEHa34PHHbVn-bMiDEyGX2ZTL2ZlwRYjELwAWlA&s=450qViptxuA89_MvQJItJ7JQDi79v9TNwtgPXEXLCMw&e=) > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: [https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanngnso_&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=8SZpUEHa34PHHbVn-bMiDEyGX2ZTL2ZlwRYjELwAWlA&s=wNRPsTE6VKlY_jJWWTxr_PxOtULPfPDu7NSdKnHPq6w&e=) > > [http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=8SZpUEHa34PHHbVn-bMiDEyGX2ZTL2ZlwRYjELwAWlA&s=IZXCUviatRVfYPqEhTQ0S1ywt2hNe74PirnqXEW-oYE&e=) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 21:57:15 2019 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 21:57:15 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: <31VEMn1JPy5q1DzMS_dF1E-pVsVCHkRLQG8hoOlypHflHX8CfcamHHX8yCyWWa_HHqH5i008_L_SoVu_w3fsc180waaVF2OsJjYKoFNpvco=@ferdeline.com> References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <31VEMn1JPy5q1DzMS_dF1E-pVsVCHkRLQG8hoOlypHflHX8CfcamHHX8yCyWWa_HHqH5i008_L_SoVu_w3fsc180waaVF2OsJjYKoFNpvco=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I plan to be in Marrakech! Sent from my iPhone > On 04 Feb 2019, at 21:46, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Wow, they want names so early now! I plan to be in Marrakech > > Best wishes, Ayden > > >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 20:38, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Hi folks, as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in 30 days earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please councillors, let me know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so that we can select a substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if you wish to attend ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. >> >> cheers Stephanie >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 >> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 >> From: Terri Agnew >> To: Stephanie Perrin , Maryam Bakoshi >> CC: gnso-secs at icann.org >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Friday, 22 February 2019. >> >> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >> >> Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting funded traveler lists are due 120 days prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days prior). >> >> >> >> Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting: >> >> Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. >> Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. >> Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. >> Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. >> Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in advance. >> Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. >> >> >> Please note: >> >> GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. >> All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy. Should you have any questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may contact us at privacy at icann.org. >> >> >> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: >> >> >> >> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel. >> >> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. >> >> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. >> >> 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >> >> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. >> >> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Sunday, 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019 >> >> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >> >> 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. >> >> >> >> Many thanks for your cooperation! >> >> >> >> With kind regards, >> >> Terri >> >> --- >> >> Terri Agnew >> >> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: terri.agnew at icann.org >> >> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann >> >> >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] >> >> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] >> >> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 01:06:38 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 08:06:38 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Thanks Stephanie, yes I am planning to attend Marrakech meeting. Rafik Le mar. 5 f?vr. 2019 ? 04:38, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Hi folks, as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in > 30 days earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please > councillors, let me know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so > that we can select a substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if > you wish to attend ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. > > cheers Stephanie > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers > Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 > Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 > From: Terri Agnew > To: Stephanie Perrin > , Maryam Bakoshi > > CC: gnso-secs at icann.org > > Dear all, > > > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a timely > fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to > gnso-secs at icann.org by *Friday, 22 February 2019. * > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC > review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed > reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting *funded traveler lists are due 120 > days* prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days prior). > > > > *Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting:* > > - Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight > confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. > - Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their > visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > - Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa > (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > - Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. > - Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in > advance. > - Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with > Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. > > > > Please note: > > - GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation > funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please *DO NOT* > book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > - All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing > travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed > in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy > . Should you have any questions > or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may > contact us at privacy at icann.org. > > > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of > fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the > following into consideration: > > > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming > travel. > > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make > sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel > team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by > case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day > deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel > as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa > issues. > > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours > and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN > meeting venue. > > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is *Sunday, > 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019* > > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done > at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN > hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not refund > or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a > replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel > their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their > reservation. > > > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > > > With kind regards, > > *Terri * > > * ---* > > *Terri Agnew* > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org > > *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] > > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] > > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > [facebook.com] > > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 01:08:48 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:08:48 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, I cannot know 100% as of now. I will have to wait for another couple of months before I?ll be able to confirm wether I?ll be able to make it or not. There is a high chance I?ll be able to if I get a visa. however I will have to assess the security situation in the region closer to the time and decide accordingly. It?s a bit too soon anyway though, no? E. ? On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:38 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Hi folks, > as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in 30 days > earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please councillors, let me > know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so that we can select a > substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if you wish to attend > ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. > > cheers Stephanie > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers > Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 > Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 > From: Terri Agnew > To: Stephanie Perrin > , Maryam Bakoshi > > CC: gnso-secs at icann.org > > Dear all, > > > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a timely > fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to > gnso-secs at icann.org by *Friday, 22 February 2019. * > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC > review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed > reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting *funded traveler lists are due 120 > days* prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days prior). > > > > *Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting:* > > - Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight > confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. > - Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their > visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > - Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa > (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > - Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. > - Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in > advance. > - Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with > Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. > > > > Please note: > > - GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation > funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please *DO NOT* > book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > - All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing > travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed > in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy > . Should you have any questions > or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may > contact us at privacy at icann.org. > > > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of > fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the > following into consideration: > > > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming > travel. > > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make > sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel > team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by > case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day > deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel > as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa > issues. > > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours > and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN > meeting venue. > > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is *Sunday, > 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019* > > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done > at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN > hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not refund > or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a > replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel > their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their > reservation. > > > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > > > With kind regards, > > *Terri * > > * ---* > > *Terri Agnew* > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org > > *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] > > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] > > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > [facebook.com] > > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 6 20:08:13 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 18:08:13 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Reminder] public comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As the penholder of the comment on the budget I will not express a view on its submission, though I am working now to resolve comments that have been left in the document. Similarly, I will refrain from commenting on the strategic plan comment, as I also contributed to its drafting. Many thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Sunday, February 3, 2019 5:37 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi all, > > this is a reminder regarding the comments review for this week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 29 janv. 2019 ? 08:06, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> we have 2 drafts for public comments, being reviewed by NCSG members but we should review them as PC too due to time constraint: >> >> - ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 ? 2025 , deadline 8th Feb, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTfrDKosnig9hVghrlWr--znKSK5acVALJgaeeip5nU/edit >> >> - ICANN FY20 budget and operating plan, 11th Feb, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AniE-6_-i4-CAUGtJwgFA1gLaWzWHkBfWAHQ3Y-PvZs/edit?usp=sharing >> >> please start the review. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 20:32:01 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:32:01 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Reminder] public comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very good work as always Ayden, I support the submission of the. And a big thanks for the work. Best, Mart?n On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, 15:08 Ayden F?rdeline As the penholder of the comment on the budget I will not express a view on > its submission, though I am working now to resolve comments that have been > left in the document. > > Similarly, I will refrain from commenting on the strategic plan comment, > as I also contributed to its drafting. > > Many thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, February 3, 2019 5:37 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > hi all, > > this is a reminder regarding the comments review for this week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le mar. 29 janv. 2019 ? 08:06, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> we have 2 drafts for public comments, being reviewed by NCSG members but >> we should review them as PC too due to time constraint: >> >> - ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 ? 2025 , deadline 8th >> Feb, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTfrDKosnig9hVghrlWr--znKSK5acVALJgaeeip5nU/edit >> - ICANN FY20 budget and operating plan, 11th Feb, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AniE-6_-i4-CAUGtJwgFA1gLaWzWHkBfWAHQ3Y-PvZs/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> please start the review. >> >> 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 stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Wed Feb 6 23:21:17 2019 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:21:17 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <8b23c69d-b52c-b4f1-4070-bf57e284aa4b@digitaldiscretion.ca> They are really moving the dates up in my opinion....4 months is a lot of advance notice.? I will include you as planning to attend, and if you have to back out we will let them know... Thanks! Stephanie On 2019-02-04 18:08, Elsa S wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > I cannot know 100% as of now. I will have to wait for another couple > of months before I?ll be able to confirm wether I?ll be able to make > it or not. There is a high chance I?ll be able to if I get a visa. > however I will have to assess the security situation in the region > closer to the time and decide accordingly. > > It?s a bit too soon anyway though, no? > > E. > ? > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:38 PM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > Hi folks, > > as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in > 30 days earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22.? Please > councillors, let me know if you will not be planning to attend > ICANN65, so that we can select a substitute.? As for the NCSG EC, > please let me know if you wish to attend ICANN 65 and are not > otherwise funded. > > cheers Stephanie > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor > Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 > Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 > From: Terri Agnew > > To: Stephanie Perrin > , Maryam Bakoshi > > CC: gnso-secs at icann.org > > > > > Dear all, > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in > a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to > gnso-secs at icann.org by *Friday, 22 > February 2019. * > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and > the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow > for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel > arrangements. > > Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting *funded traveler lists are > due 120 days* prior to the next ICANN meeting.(This was formerly > 90 days prior). > > ** > > *Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting:* > > * Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and > flight confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their > visa. > * Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit > their visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting > location. > * Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit > visa (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. > * Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. > * Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel > in advance. > * Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors > with Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a > timelier manner. > > Please note: > > * GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation > funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please > *DO NOT* book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. // > * All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of > providing travel support for participants related to ICANN > events will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy > Policy .? Should you > have any questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and > our privacy practices, you may contact us at privacy at icann.org > . > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest > of fairness and in light of budget restrictions?we would like you > to take the following into consideration: > > 1.Respond?timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel. > > 2.If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to > acquire your visa immediately.?Please contact the ICANN travel > team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3.Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case > basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day > deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the > same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to > attend due to visa issues. > > 4.If possible please book?direct travel requests.?Detours and > multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5.Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting > venue. > > 6.Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is *Sunday, > 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019* > > 7.If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at > their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the > ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8./Privately Booked Reservations/:?ICANN will not refund or take > over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a > replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to > cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over > their reservation. > > ?Many thanks for your cooperation! > > With kind regards, > > *Terri * > > *????????????---* > > *Terri Agnew* > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Email:*terri.agnew at icann.org > > *Skype ID:*terri.agnew.icann > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses?and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] > > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO > [twitter.com] > > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > [facebook.com] > > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 6 23:31:25 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 21:31:25 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: <8b23c69d-b52c-b4f1-4070-bf57e284aa4b@digitaldiscretion.ca> References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <8b23c69d-b52c-b4f1-4070-bf57e284aa4b@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: It will be interesting to measure how many new plan tickets they will need to purchase (because ICANN purchases non-refundable ones) because of the this timeline, as there is likely to be an increase in traveler name changes because circumstances have changed... Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:21 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > They are really moving the dates up in my opinion....4 months is a lot of advance notice. I will include you as planning to attend, and if you have to back out we will let them know... > > Thanks! > > Stephanie > > On 2019-02-04 18:08, Elsa S wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> I cannot know 100% as of now. I will have to wait for another couple of months before I?ll be able to confirm wether I?ll be able to make it or not. There is a high chance I?ll be able to if I get a visa. however I will have to assess the security situation in the region closer to the time and decide accordingly. >> >> It?s a bit too soon anyway though, no? >> >> E. >> ? >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:38 PM Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >> >>> as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in 30 days earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please councillors, let me know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so that we can select a substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if you wish to attend ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. >>> >>> cheers Stephanie >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 >>> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 >>> From: Terri Agnew [](mailto:terri.agnew at icann.org) >>> >>> To: Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), Maryam Bakoshi [](mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) >>> >>> CC: gnso-secs at icann.org [](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org) >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Friday, 22 February 2019. >>> >>> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >>> >>> Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting funded traveler lists are due 120 days prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days prior). >>> >>> Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting: >>> >>> - Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. >>> >>> - Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. >>> >>> - Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. >>> >>> - Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. >>> >>> - Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in advance. >>> >>> - Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. >>> >>> Please note: >>> >>> - GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. >>> >>> - All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of providing travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be processed in accordance with the [ICANN Privacy Policy](https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy). Should you have any questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, you may contact us at privacy at icann.org. >>> >>> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: >>> >>> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel. >>> >>> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. >>> >>> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. >>> >>> 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >>> >>> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. >>> >>> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Sunday, 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019 >>> >>> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >>> >>> 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. >>> >>> Many thanks for your cooperation! >>> >>> With kind regards, >>> >>> Terri >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Terri Agnew >>> >>> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Email: terri.agnew at icann.org >>> >>> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=8SZpUEHa34PHHbVn-bMiDEyGX2ZTL2ZlwRYjELwAWlA&s=gLQlBoUP4A9PKQ_d-b7umxAWP5TaoaduSSCtRCOQo5o&e=) >>> >>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=8SZpUEHa34PHHbVn-bMiDEyGX2ZTL2ZlwRYjELwAWlA&s=450qViptxuA89_MvQJItJ7JQDi79v9TNwtgPXEXLCMw&e=) >>> >>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: [https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanngnso_&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=8SZpUEHa34PHHbVn-bMiDEyGX2ZTL2ZlwRYjELwAWlA&s=wNRPsTE6VKlY_jJWWTxr_PxOtULPfPDu7NSdKnHPq6w&e=) >>> >>> [http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=8SZpUEHa34PHHbVn-bMiDEyGX2ZTL2ZlwRYjELwAWlA&s=IZXCUviatRVfYPqEhTQ0S1ywt2hNe74PirnqXEW-oYE&e=) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Elsa Saade >> Consultant >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 23:58:59 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:58:59 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 In-Reply-To: <8b23c69d-b52c-b4f1-4070-bf57e284aa4b@digitaldiscretion.ca> References: <9338479d2a894c4ea89dcba9e8f321f0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <8b23c69d-b52c-b4f1-4070-bf57e284aa4b@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Hi, it is a safer approach for those need to apply for visa. if we get documentation for visa application well in advance for meeting like the in in Montreal it will make things easier. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 06:21, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> a ?crit : > They are really moving the dates up in my opinion....4 months is a lot of > advance notice. I will include you as planning to attend, and if you have > to back out we will let them know... > > Thanks! > > Stephanie > On 2019-02-04 18:08, Elsa S wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > I cannot know 100% as of now. I will have to wait for another couple of > months before I?ll be able to confirm wether I?ll be able to make it or > not. There is a high chance I?ll be able to if I get a visa. however I will > have to assess the security situation in the region closer to the time and > decide accordingly. > > It?s a bit too soon anyway though, no? > > E. > ? > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:38 PM Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> > as you can see, we need to get the names for Marrakech travel in 30 days >> earlier now than in the best, namely by Feb 22. Please councillors, let me >> know if you will not be planning to attend ICANN65, so that we can select a >> substitute. As for the NCSG EC, please let me know if you wish to attend >> ICANN 65 and are not otherwise funded. >> >> cheers Stephanie >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: ICANN65 | Marrakech- Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers >> Database Due // Friday, 22 February 2019 >> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 19:17:40 +0000 >> From: Terri Agnew >> To: Stephanie Perrin >> , Maryam Bakoshi >> >> CC: gnso-secs at icann.org >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN65 in Marrakech in a >> timely fashion, please submit your ICANN65 Meeting database to >> gnso-secs at icann.org by *Friday, 22 February 2019. * >> >> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the >> OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for >> confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >> >> Moving forward, all tri-annual meeting *funded traveler lists are due >> 120 days* prior to the next ICANN meeting. (This was formerly 90 days >> prior). >> >> >> >> *Benefits of having the list 120 Days Before the Meeting:* >> >> - Allow ICANN to gather the documentation required (hotel and flight >> confirmations) for funded travelers to apply for their visa. >> - Allow enough time for funded travelers to complete and submit their >> visa application, which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. >> - Allow enough time for funded travelers to apply for a transit visa >> (if required), which often vary per ICANN Meeting location. >> - Allow ICANN to purchase less expensive airfares. >> - Allow the travelers to plan their pre-and-post Meeting Travel in >> advance. >> - Allow ICANN to set-up funded travelers in advance as vendors with >> Finance allowing us to wire their per diem funds in a timelier manner. >> >> >> >> Please note: >> >> - GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation >> funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please *DO >> NOT* book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. >> - All personal data provided to ICANN org in for purposes of >> providing travel support for participants related to ICANN events will be >> processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >> . Should you have any >> questions or concerns about this Privacy Policy and our privacy practices, >> you may contact us at privacy at icann.org. >> >> >> >> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of >> fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the >> following into consideration: >> >> >> >> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming >> travel. >> >> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make >> sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel >> team to let them know you will need a visa. >> >> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by >> case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day >> deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel >> as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa >> issues. >> >> 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours >> and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >> >> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN >> meeting venue. >> >> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is *Sunday, >> 23 June ? Friday, 28 June 2019* >> >> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be >> done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the >> ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >> >> 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not refund >> or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a >> replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel >> their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their >> reservation. >> >> >> >> Many thanks for your cooperation! >> >> >> >> With kind regards, >> >> *Terri * >> >> * ---* >> >> *Terri Agnew* >> >> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org >> >> *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann >> >> >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and >> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] >> >> >> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] >> >> >> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >> [facebook.com] >> >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing 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 Thu Feb 7 16:49:02 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:49:02 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls Message-ID: Hello, as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving any relevant update. - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 7 17:53:40 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:53:40 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, unfortunately I will be unable to join a call next week. Please note my apologies if we have one. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello, > > as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: > > - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving any relevant update. > - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. > > Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. > > Best, > > Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Feb 7 18:55:26 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:55:26 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20980ba5-3c55-5c34-e473-4f19b4e51848@mail.utoronto.ca> I think it is better to have two calls, but given the amount of work Ayden has been shouldering we kind of need him there. Can we do one at another time? cheers Steph On 2019-02-07 10:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Hi Rafik, unfortunately I will be unable to join a call next week. Please note my apologies if we have one. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hello, as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: * 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving any relevant update. * 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 23:12:18 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:12:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: <20980ba5-3c55-5c34-e473-4f19b4e51848@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <20980ba5-3c55-5c34-e473-4f19b4e51848@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Unfortunately I cannot do 2 calls in the week of 18th Feb as I will be travelling on that Monday and Thursday. In such case, only 1 call is possible. Best, Rafik On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, 01:55 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca wrote: > I think it is better to have two calls, but given the amount of work Ayden > has been shouldering we kind of need him there. Can we do one at another > time? > > cheers Steph > On 2019-02-07 10:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Rafik, unfortunately I will be unable to join a call next week. Please > note my apologies if we have one. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:49 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hello, > > as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final report > for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: > > - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the > extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for > any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving > any relevant update. > - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some > dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. > > Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with > allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 08:11:55 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:11:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Reminder] public comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks Martin, Ayden, unless I hear a strong objection, I will submit the comment by the deadline. Rafik Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 03:32, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a ?crit : > Very good work as always Ayden, I support the submission of the. And a big > thanks for the work. > > Best, > Mart?n > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, 15:08 Ayden F?rdeline >> As the penholder of the comment on the budget I will not express a view >> on its submission, though I am working now to resolve comments that have >> been left in the document. >> >> Similarly, I will refrain from commenting on the strategic plan comment, >> as I also contributed to its drafting. >> >> Many thanks, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, February 3, 2019 5:37 PM, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> hi all, >> >> this is a reminder regarding the comments review for this week. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le mar. 29 janv. 2019 ? 08:06, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have 2 drafts for public comments, being reviewed by NCSG members but >>> we should review them as PC too due to time constraint: >>> >>> - ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 ? 2025 , deadline 8th >>> Feb, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTfrDKosnig9hVghrlWr--znKSK5acVALJgaeeip5nU/edit >>> - ICANN FY20 budget and operating plan, 11th Feb, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AniE-6_-i4-CAUGtJwgFA1gLaWzWHkBfWAHQ3Y-PvZs/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> please start the review. >>> >>> 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 Fri Feb 8 17:28:01 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 00:28:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Reminder] public comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: for clarification, I will submit the comment on FY20 budget today. the comment on strategical plan is still under review and deadline is the 11th Feb Rafik Le ven. 8 f?vr. 2019 ? 15:11, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > thanks Martin, Ayden, > unless I hear a strong objection, I will submit the comment by the > deadline. > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 03:32, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a ?crit : > >> Very good work as always Ayden, I support the submission of the. And a >> big thanks for the work. >> >> Best, >> Mart?n >> >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, 15:08 Ayden F?rdeline > >>> As the penholder of the comment on the budget I will not express a view >>> on its submission, though I am working now to resolve comments that have >>> been left in the document. >>> >>> Similarly, I will refrain from commenting on the strategic plan comment, >>> as I also contributed to its drafting. >>> >>> Many thanks, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Sunday, February 3, 2019 5:37 PM, Rafik Dammak < >>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> hi all, >>> >>> this is a reminder regarding the comments review for this week. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Le mar. 29 janv. 2019 ? 08:06, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we have 2 drafts for public comments, being reviewed by NCSG members >>>> but we should review them as PC too due to time constraint: >>>> >>>> - ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 ? 2025 , deadline 8th >>>> Feb, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTfrDKosnig9hVghrlWr--znKSK5acVALJgaeeip5nU/edit >>>> - ICANN FY20 budget and operating plan, 11th Feb, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AniE-6_-i4-CAUGtJwgFA1gLaWzWHkBfWAHQ3Y-PvZs/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> please start the review. >>>> >>>> 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 Mon Feb 11 00:03:45 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 07:03:45 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] public comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, please review and share your position about the ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 ? 2025 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTfrDKosnig9hVghrlWr--znKSK5acVALJgaeeip5nU/edit . The deadline for submission is this Monday. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 00:18:19 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 07:18:19 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, we have this draft comment for review too. I was reached previously by ICANN staff if we were planning to submit comment and indicated yes. I asked for few days extension and that should be ok. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:12 Subject: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews To: NCSG Hi all, Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated operating standards for specific review https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit Please review the draft comment and share your edits and comments using "suggestion" mode in the google doc. You can also share your thoughts here too for discussion. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 14:13:17 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:13:17 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8A6C1A50-2FF0-44A2-A82C-E1C9A56BE588@gmail.com> Hi all, I support the submission of this comments. Thank you Ioana for the drafting. Best, Mart?n > On Feb 10, 2019, at 7:18 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > hi all, > > we have this draft comment for review too. > I was reached previously by ICANN staff if we were planning to submit comment and indicated yes. I asked for few days extension and that should be ok. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rafik Dammak > > Date: lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:12 > Subject: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews > To: NCSG > > > > Hi all, > > Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated operating standards for specific review https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit > > Please review the draft comment and share your edits and comments using "suggestion" mode in the google doc. You can also share your thoughts here too for discussion. > > 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 23:33:08 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:33:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] public comments review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, this draft comment was shared with NCSG members weeks ago and has been under PC for a while. as I don't see any objection in the list and we are just few hours away for the deadline, I think we can consider this comment as approved (attached document). Best Regards, Rafik Le lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:03, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > please review and share your position about the ICANN Strategic Plan for > Fiscal Years 2021 ? 2025 > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WTfrDKosnig9hVghrlWr--znKSK5acVALJgaeeip5nU/edit . > The deadline for submission is this Monday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 ? 2025 - NCSG Comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 120284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 04:13:20 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:13:20 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, with regard to calls, I suggest: 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation by recommendation based on level of consensus ) 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hello, > > as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final report > for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: > > - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the > extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for > any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving > any relevant update. > - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some > dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. > > Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with > allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. > > Best, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Feb 12 22:54:25 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:54:25 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Could one of you kind councillors please post this message to the council list? Thanks! Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:48:23 -0500 From: Stephanie Perrin To: council at gnso.icann.org It used to be called a "unified" access model. When did we decide to start calling it a "uniform" access model? Since it can never be uniform, I think it is a misleading term. Unified gives me enough heartburn, how about sticking to "System for Standardized Access". Stephanie Perrin On 2019-02-12 14:07, Drazek, Keith via council wrote: Hi all, Thanks for forwarding this note from the BC?s EPDP WG reps. I?ll be happy to provide some additional context and guidance, both for Councilors and for the members of the EPDP WG. I?m copying Kurt, Rafik and Marika, so this can be forwarded to the EPDP WG list. 1. During the EPDP WG Chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team made clear there would need to be two distinct phases of the work of the EPDP, each with its own Initial Report and Final Report. Phase One would focus on the Temporary Specification with an imposed 12-month deadline of May 25, 2019 due to the Board?s decision to invoke the Temp Spec. Phase Two would focus on the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data after the gating questions from Phase One were addressed and the GNSO Council agreed. Here is the Charter language specifying the Objectives and timing: ?To develop, at a minimum, an Initial Report and a Final Report regarding the EPDP Team?s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data as well as regarding the EPDP Team?s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data, pursuant to the processes described in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO Expedited PDP Manual. Work on recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data should not commence until all gating questions have been answered. Similarly, delivery of the Final Report on the EPDP Team?s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data to the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board (before 25 May 2019) should not be held up by work that may still be ongoing in relation to the EPDP Team?s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data.? 1. The Phase One Initial Report was delivered on 21 November and public comments were received, analyzed and incorporated. During the chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team agreed, after much negotiation, to consider initiating the Phase Two work after the publication of the Phase One Initial Report, rather than after the Phase One Final Report, with the hope/expectation that the gating questions would have been sufficiently answered and the foundation for Phase Two would have been established. Unfortunately, as we all know, the Phase One Initial Report was not sufficiently complete, the gating questions were not yet addressed, and much more work was required before Phase Two could begin. Fortunately, with the current Phase One Final Report nearly complete, the EPDP will be able to begin work on Phase Two in short order. 1. As everyone should have seen in my email to the Council list last night (responding to Rafik?s note submitting the draft Final Report and Council Motion), our proposed motion will approve the Phase One Final Report and Consensus Policy recommendations AND signal the Council?s agreement (through non-objection) that the Phase Two work can begin. This is a significant moment where the EPDP WG is recommending a Consensus Policy replacement to the Temp Spec to be confirmed by Council and ICANN Board, it has substantially answered the gating questions, and it also agreed to defer certain issues to Phase Two. This is the definition of bottom-up consensus policy-making, and the GNSO Council looks forward to approving the Phase One Final Report, delivering it to the Board, and to supporting the EPDP WG in its Phase Two work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, or Uniform Access Model. To summarize: * The EPDP WG was chartered to have two distinct phases, one on the Temp Spec, the other on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data and the Annex to the Temporary Specification (Important Issues for Further Community Action). * The current report is the Final Report from Phase One. * The GNSO Council is expected to approve the Phase One Final Report replacing the Temp Spec AND authorize the EPDP WG to move to Phase Two. * Following GNSO PDP operating procedures and the ICANN bylaws, the EPDP WG recommendations to replace the Temp Spec will need to be approved by GNSO Council and the ICANN Board to ensure they are Consensus Policies and enforceable by ICANN Org. * The EPDP Charter is clear that the work on the System for Standardized Access is the next critical phase and it will receive the full support of the GNSO Council and ICANN Org. * Without Council approval of the Phase One Final Report, and without a new Consensus Policy to replace the Temp Spec before May 25, 2019, there will be no work on Phase Two. I hope this helps provide clarity around the views and intent of the GNSO Council as we initiated this important work and our expectations for the coming weeks. I appreciate the opportunity to review and reflect on the Charter and the work of the EPDP and I?m impressed by the group?s output in a very compressed timeframe. Please let me know if anyone has follow up questions. Otherwise, we?ll look forward to considering the EPDP WG Phase One Final Report during our 21 February and/or 4 March GNSO Council meetings. Regards, Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair From: council On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 12:36 PM To: council at gnso.icann.org Cc: Mark Svancarek (CELA) ; Steve DelBianco ; Margie Milam Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval Importance: High Dear all, I?ve been asked to send the below message to you from Margie, on behalf of the BC?s EPDP participants. I?m copying them here for ease. We?d appreciate your thoughts. Thanks Marie Hi ? Thank you for sharing this note. I am genuinely confused about the directions given to the GNSO Council since this report ? although it is misnamed a ?Final Report? is really only an ?Phase 1 Interim Report? since the PDP has not concluded, and the charter questions have not been answered. As a result, is seems that the voting thresholds to create a consensus policy and the vote required under the Bylaws do not yet apply until the Phase 2 work is complete. I understand the desire to call this a Final Report, but there is a significant amount of work that has not been done yet, as outlined in the draft report being circulated, with key areas missing, such as: ?the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. (p.3, Mission and Scope, emphasis added) This passage sets forth the minimum requirements necessary for successful completion of the EPDP. However, one set of questions (see p.7 of the charter) -- dealing with access to non-public registration data -- is entirely unaddressed by the EPDP team. Further, according to the charter: System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. (p.7, emphasis added) The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the ?gating questions? (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report). Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year. Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team?s work. What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual ?final? report (not merely a report on the conclusion of Phase 1), inclusive of Phases 1 and 2. Additionally, Section 2(j) of the charter addresses ?Reasonable Access.? In what is labeled the draft final report, the charter?s section 2(j) questions are only partially answered, and included is a recommendation that the rest of the details be worked out in the implementation phase. Again, the EPDP team?s work is not yet finished, and it is premature to consider the current ?consensus calls? instructive since this is an incomplete report, and true consensus can only truly be determined when the entire package (Phase 1 and Phase 2) of recommendations is developed. As a result, the report should be renamed, and the Council?s instructions should be updated accordingly. All the best, Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team > on behalf of Rafik Dammak > Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:43 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" > Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval hi all, Please find below the email sent to GNSO council to submit the motion for council consideration to approve the final report. You can find the latest version of the report posted in word and redline version on the wiki space https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: mar. 12 f?vr. 2019 ? 08:10 Subject: Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval To: Council GNSO > Hi all, I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard. The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Councillors: We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document. The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of ?quiet period? to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report. With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where: ? The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation ? The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation ? The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion. In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final. Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow. We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations. Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals. Best regards, EPDP Leadership Team _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 23:01:47 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:01:47 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a question though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday 14th? And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for more than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our conversation would be more constructive and efficient. E. ? On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > with regard to calls, I suggest: > 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of NCSG > positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation by > recommendation based on level of consensus ) > 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council > agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP > so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. > > the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hello, >> >> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final report >> for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >> >> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the >> extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for >> any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving >> any relevant update. >> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >> >> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with >> allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 23:08:05 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:08:05 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in meeting of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a timing issue and Friday is least worse option. I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are the same like for the previous calls. Best, Rafik On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S Hi Rafik, > > Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a question > though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday 14th? > > And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for more > than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our conversation > would be more constructive and efficient. > > E. > ? > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> with regard to calls, I suggest: >> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of NCSG >> positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation by >> recommendation based on level of consensus ) >> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council >> agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >> >> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final >>> report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>> >>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the >>> extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for >>> any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving >>> any relevant update. >>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >>> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>> >>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with >>> allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 23:11:53 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:11:53 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the sake of best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to send us their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, however, my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP team members IMHO. Thanks again Rafik, Elsa ? On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in meeting > of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a timing > issue and Friday is least worse option. > > I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and > material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are > the same like for the previous calls. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a question >> though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday 14th? >> >> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for more >> than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our conversation >> would be more constructive and efficient. >> >> E. >> ? >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of >>> NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation >>> by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council >>> agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>> >>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final >>>> report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>> >>>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the >>>> extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for >>>> any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving >>>> any relevant update. >>>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >>>> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>> >>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 >>>> with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- >> -- >> >> Elsa Saade >> Consultant >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >> > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 10:11:50 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 03:11:50 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG consensus position. so just take them as a personal opinion for now It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of the following points: 1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and delivered the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of the group and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, but we would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report. Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all heros. 2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements matrix have expanded and include "Additional data elements as identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which can be sensitive, personal information of domain name registrants. We have raised this concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even mention the additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base some of the purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The response that we received was that this provision and the related purposes will not lead to the expansion of registration data elements. This is not a satisfactory response. we would like to register our concern and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that registration data elements might be expanded and include even more sensitive data, due to this addition, that can be disclosed to third parties. 3. Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". --- This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later. On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S wrote: > I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the sake of > best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to send us > their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? > > I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, however, > my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP team > members IMHO. > > Thanks again Rafik, > > Elsa > ? > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in meeting >> of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a timing >> issue and Friday is least worse option. >> >> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and >> material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are >> the same like for the previous calls. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S > >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a question >>> though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday 14th? >>> >>> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for more >>> than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our conversation >>> would be more constructive and efficient. >>> >>> E. >>> ? >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of >>>> NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation >>>> by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council >>>> agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>>> >>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final >>>>> report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>>> >>>>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before >>>>> the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us >>>>> for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and >>>>> giving any relevant update. >>>>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >>>>> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>>> >>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 >>>>> with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Elsa Saade >>> Consultant >>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>> >> -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 10:18:59 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:18:59 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, As those points align with my position, I can certainly make them before voting yes ? either tomorrow or on the GNSO call. I guess there will be time for expressing opinions. If this would be a consensus position of the NCSG, one of us can make a statement, as we did with Red Cross. I guess we have enough time to prepare a consensus statement before the GNSO vote, if necessary. Cheers Tanya On Wed 13. Feb 2019 at 09:12, farzaneh badii wrote: > Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG consensus position. > so just take them as a personal opinion for now > > It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move > forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the > report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't > really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our > council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of > the following points: > > 1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and > delivered the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of > the group and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, > but we would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report. > Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all > heros. > > 2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements > matrix have expanded and include "Additional data elements as identified > by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which can be sensitive, > personal information of domain name registrants. We have raised this > concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even mention the > additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base some of the > purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The response that we > received was that this provision and the related purposes will not lead > to the expansion of registration data elements. This is not a satisfactory > response. we would like to register our concern and warn the ICANN > community and domain name registrants that registration data elements might > be expanded and include even more sensitive data, due to this addition, > that can be disclosed to third parties. > > 3. Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants > globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain > name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving > towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". > > --- > > This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S wrote: > >> I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the sake >> of best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to send us >> their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? >> >> I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, >> however, my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP >> team members IMHO. >> >> Thanks again Rafik, >> >> Elsa >> ? >> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in meeting >>> of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a timing >>> issue and Friday is least worse option. >>> >>> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and >>> material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are >>> the same like for the previous calls. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S >> >>>> Hi Rafik, >>>> >>>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a >>>> question though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday >>>> 14th? >>>> >>>> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for >>>> more than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our >>>> conversation would be more constructive and efficient. >>>> >>>> E. >>>> ? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of >>>>> NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation >>>>> by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council >>>>> agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>>>> >>>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final >>>>>> report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>>>> >>>>>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before >>>>>> the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us >>>>>> for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and >>>>>> giving any relevant update. >>>>>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >>>>>> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 >>>>>> with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Elsa Saade >>>> Consultant >>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>> >>> -- >> -- >> >> Elsa Saade >> Consultant >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 21:01:27 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:01:27 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Tatiana. I will send more soon. Farzaneh On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:19 AM Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Hi, > As those points align with my position, I can certainly make them before > voting yes ? either tomorrow or on the GNSO call. I guess there will be > time for expressing opinions. If this would be a consensus position of the > NCSG, one of us can make a statement, as we did with Red Cross. I guess we > have enough time to prepare a consensus statement before the GNSO vote, if > necessary. > Cheers > Tanya > > On Wed 13. Feb 2019 at 09:12, farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG consensus position. >> so just take them as a personal opinion for now >> >> It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move >> forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the >> report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't >> really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our >> council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of >> the following points: >> >> 1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and >> delivered the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of >> the group and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, >> but we would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report. >> Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all >> heros. >> >> 2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements >> matrix have expanded and include "Additional data elements as >> identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which can >> be sensitive, personal information of domain name registrants. We have >> raised this concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even >> mention the additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base >> some of the purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The >> response that we received was that this provision and the related >> purposes will not lead to the expansion of registration data elements. >> This is not a satisfactory response. we would like to register our concern >> and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that registration >> data elements might be expanded and include even more sensitive data, due >> to this addition, that can be disclosed to third parties. >> >> 3. Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants >> globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain >> name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving >> towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". >> >> --- >> >> This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S wrote: >> >>> I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the sake >>> of best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to send us >>> their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? >>> >>> I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, >>> however, my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP >>> team members IMHO. >>> >>> Thanks again Rafik, >>> >>> Elsa >>> ? >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in >>>> meeting of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a >>>> timing issue and Friday is least worse option. >>>> >>>> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and >>>> material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are >>>> the same like for the previous calls. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S >>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a >>>>> question though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday >>>>> 14th? >>>>> >>>>> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for >>>>> more than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our >>>>> conversation would be more constructive and efficient. >>>>> >>>>> E. >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>>>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of >>>>>> NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation >>>>>> by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>>>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council >>>>>> agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>>>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>>>>> >>>>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final >>>>>>> report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before >>>>>>> the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us >>>>>>> for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and >>>>>>> giving any relevant update. >>>>>>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >>>>>>> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 >>>>>>> with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>> Consultant >>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>>> >>>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Elsa Saade >>> Consultant >>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 21:32:14 2019 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:32:14 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I will not be able to attend Friday?s call as i will be traveling, wanted to have my apologies noted. I will try to not miss Monday?s call instead. I also do think that we should not delay the approval of the final report by voting no but expressing our reservations is the best approach and there will always be time for this statement to be registered after the vote. I hope our EPDP members will be able to help come up with a consensus statement and have Tatiana read it on our behalf. Regards, Arsene Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Feb 2019, at 20:01, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Thank you Tatiana. I will send more soon. > > Farzaneh > > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:19 AM Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> Hi, >> As those points align with my position, I can certainly make them before voting yes ? either tomorrow or on the GNSO call. I guess there will be time for expressing opinions. If this would be a consensus position of the NCSG, one of us can make a statement, as we did with Red Cross. I guess we have enough time to prepare a consensus statement before the GNSO vote, if necessary. >> Cheers >> Tanya >> >>> On Wed 13. Feb 2019 at 09:12, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG consensus position. so just take them as a personal opinion for now >>> >>> It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of the following points: >>> >>> 1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and delivered the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of the group and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, but we would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report. Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all heros. >>> >>> 2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements matrix have expanded and include "Additional data elements as identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which can be sensitive, personal information of domain name registrants. We have raised this concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even mention the additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base some of the purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The response that we received was that this provision and the related purposes will not lead to the expansion of registration data elements. This is not a satisfactory response. we would like to register our concern and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that registration data elements might be expanded and include even more sensitive data, due to this addition, that can be disclosed to third parties. >>> >>> 3. Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". >>> >>> --- >>> >>> This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S wrote: >>>> I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the sake of best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to send us their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? >>>> >>>> I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, however, my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP team members IMHO. >>>> >>>> Thanks again Rafik, >>>> >>>> Elsa >>>> ? >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in meeting of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a timing issue and Friday is least worse option. >>>>> >>>>> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are the same like for the previous calls. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a question though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday 14th? >>>>>> >>>>>> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for more than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our conversation would be more constructive and efficient. >>>>>> >>>>>> E. >>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>>>>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>>>>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>>>>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>>>>>> 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving any relevant update. >>>>>>>> 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>>>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>>> Consultant >>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Elsa Saade >>>> Consultant >>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 03:18:04 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:18:04 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks all We are not really saying anything new (we said similar things in our public comments). Anyhow, I read the report again today, and re-did the statement sent it to NCSG mailing list and Tanya said will kindly read it during the meeting. I leave it to the policy committee to decide on reading the statement or the best course of action. the link to Google doc at the bottom of this email. @@@@ NCSG statement/ For GNSO Council Meeting, 14 February Despite an unrealistic timeline, EPDP achieved its goal and delivered the final report. We are positive about the final report and our councilors have voted for its approval. But we are concerned with some aspects of the report and would like to record our concerns. - The report has included additional potentially personal and sensitive data elements that are ?identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy." There was no justifiable reason to include these additional data elements in the report, nor was it justifiable to formulate purposes that could relate to processing these additional elements. These additional data elements were not included in Temp Spec either. We are concerned about subjecting these additional data elements to this policy and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that due to this addition even more sensitive and personal data might be disclosed to third parties on a global scale. - Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain name registrants and providing some with less data protection is not justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". - We believe "disclosure" of data to third parties is not an ICANN purpose for processing the data. We thank the EPDP, its leadership and ICANN staff for achieving this milestone. We hope that with this policy by cultivating a privacy-respecting culture at ICANN, protecting the personal data of domain name registrants becomes a norm, and not remain an exception. Feel free too correct mistakes, change the tone remove unnessecary rant etc. https://docs.google .com/document/d/1M8M0kaQSdQD3CC1HmpSTwMIKcufCT0ekVu7yHgx_f5w/edit?usp=sharing Farzaneh On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:32 PM Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Hi all, > > I will not be able to attend Friday?s call as i will be traveling, wanted > to have my apologies noted. I will try to not miss Monday?s call instead. > > I also do think that we should not delay the approval of the final report > by voting no but expressing our reservations is the best approach and there > will always be time for this statement to be registered after the vote. > > I hope our EPDP members will be able to help come up with a consensus > statement and have Tatiana read it on our behalf. > > Regards, > Arsene > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 13 Feb 2019, at 20:01, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Thank you Tatiana. I will send more soon. > > Farzaneh > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:19 AM Tatiana Tropina > wrote: > >> Hi, >> As those points align with my position, I can certainly make them before >> voting yes ? either tomorrow or on the GNSO call. I guess there will be >> time for expressing opinions. If this would be a consensus position of the >> NCSG, one of us can make a statement, as we did with Red Cross. I guess we >> have enough time to prepare a consensus statement before the GNSO vote, if >> necessary. >> Cheers >> Tanya >> >> On Wed 13. Feb 2019 at 09:12, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG consensus >>> position. so just take them as a personal opinion for now >>> >>> It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move >>> forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the >>> report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't >>> really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our >>> council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of >>> the following points: >>> >>> 1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and >>> delivered the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of >>> the group and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, >>> but we would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report. >>> Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all >>> heros. >>> >>> 2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements >>> matrix have expanded and include "Additional data elements as >>> identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which can >>> be sensitive, personal information of domain name registrants. We have >>> raised this concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even >>> mention the additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base >>> some of the purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The >>> response that we received was that this provision and the related >>> purposes will not lead to the expansion of registration data elements. >>> This is not a satisfactory response. we would like to register our concern >>> and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that registration >>> data elements might be expanded and include even more sensitive data, due >>> to this addition, that can be disclosed to third parties. >>> >>> 3. Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants >>> globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain >>> name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving >>> towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". >>> >>> --- >>> >>> This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S wrote: >>> >>>> I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the sake >>>> of best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to send us >>>> their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? >>>> >>>> I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, >>>> however, my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP >>>> team members IMHO. >>>> >>>> Thanks again Rafik, >>>> >>>> Elsa >>>> ? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in >>>>> meeting of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a >>>>> timing issue and Friday is least worse option. >>>>> >>>>> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and >>>>> material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are >>>>> the same like for the previous calls. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S >>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a >>>>>> question though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday >>>>>> 14th? >>>>>> >>>>>> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for >>>>>> more than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our >>>>>> conversation would be more constructive and efficient. >>>>>> >>>>>> E. >>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>>>>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of >>>>>>> NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation >>>>>>> by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>>>>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The >>>>>>> council agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>>>>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final >>>>>>>> report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before >>>>>>>> the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us >>>>>>>> for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and >>>>>>>> giving any relevant update. >>>>>>>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >>>>>>>> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 >>>>>>>> with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>>> Consultant >>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Elsa Saade >>>> Consultant >>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 05:18:15 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 22:18:15 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was wrong and there is not vote scheduled for tomorrow. If things go well at EPDP and we don't see much changes to the report then this report is acceptable and the statement stands. But I wanted to know if you could ask for more details about the informal IRT process. I don't know if you have been briefed or not but it is good to make sure that by informal IRT they don't mean just CPs and ICANN org. So if someone has clarified this before would be grateful to get some clarification. Otherwise, things are looking good please at least have a cursory review of the report yourself but we will, of course, be discussing the report on Friday. We can work on the statement now that we have more time. Best Farzaneh On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:18 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > Thanks all > > We are not really saying anything new (we said similar things in our > public comments). Anyhow, I read the report again today, and re-did the > statement sent it to NCSG mailing list and Tanya said will kindly read it > during the meeting. > > I leave it to the policy committee to decide on reading the statement or > the best course of action. the link to Google doc at the bottom of this > email. > > @@@@ > > NCSG statement/ For GNSO Council Meeting, 14 February > > Despite an unrealistic timeline, EPDP achieved its goal and delivered the > final report. We are positive about the final report and our councilors > have voted for its approval. But we are concerned with some aspects of the > report and would like to record our concerns. > > > - > > The report has included additional potentially personal and sensitive > data elements that are ?identified by Registry Operator in its registration > policy." There was no justifiable reason to include these additional data > elements in the report, nor was it justifiable to formulate purposes that > could relate to processing these additional elements. These additional > data elements were not included in Temp Spec either. We are concerned about > subjecting these additional data elements to this policy and warn the ICANN > community and domain name registrants that due to this addition even more > sensitive and personal data might be disclosed to third parties on a global > scale. > > > > - > > Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants > globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain > name registrants and providing some with less data protection is not > justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name > registrants data to third parties "globally". > > > - We believe "disclosure" of data to third parties is not an ICANN > purpose for processing the data. > > We thank the EPDP, its leadership and ICANN staff for achieving this > milestone. We hope that with this policy by cultivating a > privacy-respecting culture at ICANN, protecting the personal data of domain > name registrants becomes a norm, and not remain an exception. > > Feel free too correct mistakes, change the tone remove unnessecary rant > etc. > > https://docs.google > .com/document/d/1M8M0kaQSdQD3CC1HmpSTwMIKcufCT0ekVu7yHgx_f5w/edit?usp=sharing > > Farzaneh > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:32 PM Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I will not be able to attend Friday?s call as i will be traveling, wanted >> to have my apologies noted. I will try to not miss Monday?s call instead. >> >> I also do think that we should not delay the approval of the final report >> by voting no but expressing our reservations is the best approach and there >> will always be time for this statement to be registered after the vote. >> >> I hope our EPDP members will be able to help come up with a consensus >> statement and have Tatiana read it on our behalf. >> >> Regards, >> Arsene >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 13 Feb 2019, at 20:01, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> Thank you Tatiana. I will send more soon. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:19 AM Tatiana Tropina < >> tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> As those points align with my position, I can certainly make them before >>> voting yes ? either tomorrow or on the GNSO call. I guess there will be >>> time for expressing opinions. If this would be a consensus position of the >>> NCSG, one of us can make a statement, as we did with Red Cross. I guess we >>> have enough time to prepare a consensus statement before the GNSO vote, if >>> necessary. >>> Cheers >>> Tanya >>> >>> On Wed 13. Feb 2019 at 09:12, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG consensus >>>> position. so just take them as a personal opinion for now >>>> >>>> It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move >>>> forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the >>>> report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't >>>> really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our >>>> council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of >>>> the following points: >>>> >>>> 1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and >>>> delivered the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of >>>> the group and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, >>>> but we would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report. >>>> Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all >>>> heros. >>>> >>>> 2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements >>>> matrix have expanded and include "Additional data elements as >>>> identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which can >>>> be sensitive, personal information of domain name registrants. We have >>>> raised this concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even >>>> mention the additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base >>>> some of the purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The >>>> response that we received was that this provision and the related >>>> purposes will not lead to the expansion of registration data elements. >>>> This is not a satisfactory response. we would like to register our concern >>>> and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that registration >>>> data elements might be expanded and include even more sensitive data, due >>>> to this addition, that can be disclosed to third parties. >>>> >>>> 3. Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants >>>> globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain >>>> name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving >>>> towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the >>>>> sake of best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to >>>>> send us their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? >>>>> >>>>> I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, >>>>> however, my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP >>>>> team members IMHO. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> Elsa >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in >>>>>> meeting of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a >>>>>> timing issue and Friday is least worse option. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics >>>>>> and material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material >>>>>> are the same like for the previous calls. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S >>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a >>>>>>> question though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday >>>>>>> 14th? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for >>>>>>> more than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our >>>>>>> conversation would be more constructive and efficient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> E. >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>>>>>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense >>>>>>>> of NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote >>>>>>>> recommendation by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>>>>>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The >>>>>>>> council agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>>>>>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final >>>>>>>>> report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily >>>>>>>>> before the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will >>>>>>>>> helps us for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level >>>>>>>>> and giving any relevant update. >>>>>>>>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >>>>>>>>> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer >>>>>>>>> (2h30 with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>>>> Consultant >>>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>> Consultant >>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 08:18:24 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 07:18:24 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Yes, that?s what I meant in my first email yesterday saying I can make it ?either tomorrow or on GNSO call?. Tomorrow is discussion, vote next week on GNSo call ? we have enough time to prepare and approve NCSG statement if needed as we have two policy calls (unless you wanted to make it tomorrow during the discussion. But I think best we do it before vote as with Red Cross). Cheers, Tanya On Thu 14. Feb 2019 at 04:18, farzaneh badii wrote: > I was wrong and there is not vote scheduled for tomorrow. If things go > well at EPDP and we don't see much changes to the report then this report > is acceptable and the statement stands. > > But I wanted to know if you could ask for more details about the informal > IRT process. I don't know if you have been briefed or not but it is good to > make sure that by informal IRT they don't mean just CPs and ICANN org. So > if someone has clarified this before would be grateful to get some > clarification. Otherwise, things are looking good please at least have a > cursory review of the report yourself but we will, of course, be discussing > the report on Friday. We can work on the statement now that we have more > time. > > > Best > > > Farzaneh > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:18 PM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Thanks all >> >> We are not really saying anything new (we said similar things in our >> public comments). Anyhow, I read the report again today, and re-did the >> statement sent it to NCSG mailing list and Tanya said will kindly read it >> during the meeting. >> >> I leave it to the policy committee to decide on reading the statement or >> the best course of action. the link to Google doc at the bottom of this >> email. >> >> @@@@ >> >> NCSG statement/ For GNSO Council Meeting, 14 February >> >> Despite an unrealistic timeline, EPDP achieved its goal and delivered the >> final report. We are positive about the final report and our councilors >> have voted for its approval. But we are concerned with some aspects of the >> report and would like to record our concerns. >> >> >> - >> >> The report has included additional potentially personal and >> sensitive data elements that are ?identified by Registry Operator in its >> registration policy." There was no justifiable reason to include these >> additional data elements in the report, nor was it justifiable to formulate >> purposes that could relate to processing these additional elements. These >> additional data elements were not included in Temp Spec either. We are >> concerned about subjecting these additional data elements to this policy >> and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that due to this >> addition even more sensitive and personal data might be disclosed to third >> parties on a global scale. >> >> >> >> - >> >> Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants >> globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain >> name registrants and providing some with less data protection is not >> justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name >> registrants data to third parties "globally". >> >> >> - We believe "disclosure" of data to third parties is not an ICANN >> purpose for processing the data. >> >> We thank the EPDP, its leadership and ICANN staff for achieving this >> milestone. We hope that with this policy by cultivating a >> privacy-respecting culture at ICANN, protecting the personal data of domain >> name registrants becomes a norm, and not remain an exception. >> >> Feel free too correct mistakes, change the tone remove unnessecary rant >> etc. >> >> https://docs.google >> .com/document/d/1M8M0kaQSdQD3CC1HmpSTwMIKcufCT0ekVu7yHgx_f5w/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:32 PM Ars?ne Tungali >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I will not be able to attend Friday?s call as i will be traveling, >>> wanted to have my apologies noted. I will try to not miss Monday?s call >>> instead. >>> >>> I also do think that we should not delay the approval of the final >>> report by voting no but expressing our reservations is the best approach >>> and there will always be time for this statement to be registered after the >>> vote. >>> >>> I hope our EPDP members will be able to help come up with a consensus >>> statement and have Tatiana read it on our behalf. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Arsene >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 13 Feb 2019, at 20:01, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Tatiana. I will send more soon. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:19 AM Tatiana Tropina < >>> tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> As those points align with my position, I can certainly make them >>>> before voting yes ? either tomorrow or on the GNSO call. I guess there will >>>> be time for expressing opinions. If this would be a consensus position of >>>> the NCSG, one of us can make a statement, as we did with Red Cross. I guess >>>> we have enough time to prepare a consensus statement before the GNSO vote, >>>> if necessary. >>>> Cheers >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> On Wed 13. Feb 2019 at 09:12, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG consensus >>>>> position. so just take them as a personal opinion for now >>>>> >>>>> It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move >>>>> forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the >>>>> report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't >>>>> really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our >>>>> council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of >>>>> the following points: >>>>> >>>>> 1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and >>>>> delivered the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of >>>>> the group and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, >>>>> but we would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report. >>>>> Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all >>>>> heros. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements >>>>> matrix have expanded and include "Additional data elements as >>>>> identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which >>>>> can be sensitive, personal information of domain name registrants. We have >>>>> raised this concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even >>>>> mention the additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base >>>>> some of the purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The >>>>> response that we received was that this provision and the related >>>>> purposes will not lead to the expansion of registration data >>>>> elements. This is not a satisfactory response. we would like to register >>>>> our concern and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that >>>>> registration data elements might be expanded and include even more >>>>> sensitive data, due to this addition, that can be disclosed to third >>>>> parties. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants >>>>> globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain >>>>> name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving >>>>> towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the >>>>>> sake of best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to >>>>>> send us their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? >>>>>> >>>>>> I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, >>>>>> however, my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP >>>>>> team members IMHO. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Elsa >>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in >>>>>>> meeting of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a >>>>>>> timing issue and Friday is least worse option. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics >>>>>>> and material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material >>>>>>> are the same like for the previous calls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a >>>>>>>> question though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday >>>>>>>> 14th? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for >>>>>>>> more than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our >>>>>>>> conversation would be more constructive and efficient. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> E. >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak < >>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>>>>>>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense >>>>>>>>> of NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote >>>>>>>>> recommendation by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>>>>>>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The >>>>>>>>> council agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>>>>>>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of >>>>>>>>>> final report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily >>>>>>>>>> before the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will >>>>>>>>>> helps us for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level >>>>>>>>>> and giving any relevant update. >>>>>>>>>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some >>>>>>>>>> dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer >>>>>>>>>> (2h30 with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>>>>> Consultant >>>>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>>> Consultant >>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 15 18:08:40 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 01:08:40 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Vote threshold for EPDP Message-ID: Hi all, Regarding the vote threshold for EPDP, according to bylaws: *(xiv) Approval of EPDP Recommendations: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.(xv) Approve an EPDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded.* --Note this means voting for recommendations that will be binding for contracted parties *(xix) A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.* More details in the vote table in term of numbers and scenarios : https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/appendix-1-gnso-council-voting-results-18jun18-en.pdf if the recommendations coming EPDP team don't have full consensus/consensus, council will have to discuss how to deal with them before going to vote. It will have to decide beforehand to vote as package or recommendation per recommendation. It can go with the former even if we have some recommendation not having full consensus/consensus. >From operating procedures: *"In the event that the Final Report includes recommendations that did not achieve the consensus within the PDP Team, the GNSO Council should deliberate on whether to adopt them or remand the recommendations for further analysis and work. Although the GNSO Council may adopt all or any portion of the recommendations contained in the Final Report, it is recommended that the GNSO Council take into account whether the PDP Team has indicated that any recommendations contained in the Final Report are interdependent."* If a recommendation doesn't even get a simple majority, it won't be adopted and passed to board. After approval and sending to the board: *"Section A-1 section 6 Any EPDP Recommendations approved by a* *GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN*" this is important with regard to result coming from council as it will leave the board to decide. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 02:01:40 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:01:40 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 18th Feb In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda . The main topic is obviously the EPDP final report and the vote (regarding the procedure please refer to my other email) and that will follow the EPDP update call we had in Friday. The call will help us to coordinate regarding the vote while the EPDP team is finalizing the report next week (coordination should continue before and during the council meeting as EPDP team will have have its own calls next week). Please review the motion as there some resolved related to implementation planning and preparing for phase 2 with EPDP team to propose a workplan. We will also cover phase 2 too in separate agenda item which raises the point of possible amending charter. The council meeting agenda is short but substantial, it includes subsequent procedures update and in AOB a discussion about SCBO latest comments. For the rest of our call, we get some updates on public comments and any other policy issues from other PDPs or working groups. as we already had call in Friday, I would like to keep the Policy Call to 90min only. I. Introduction II. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda: *https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-21feb19-en.pdf * III. Policy Update - Policy topics: * PDPs & Review Teams Update - Public comments status: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 IV. Others Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Feb 17 09:15:01 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 07:15:01 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am just catching up on emails; was this messaged forwarded to the Council list? If not, is it still relevant? Thanks. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:54 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Could one of you kind councillors please post this message to the council list? Thanks! > > Stephanie > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:48:23 -0500 > From: Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) > > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > It used to be called a "unified" access model. When did we decide to start calling it a "uniform" access model? Since it can never be uniform, I think it is a misleading term. Unified gives me enough heartburn, how about sticking to "System for Standardized Access". > > Stephanie Perrin > > On 2019-02-12 14:07, Drazek, Keith via council wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for forwarding this note from the BC?s EPDP WG reps. I?ll be happy to provide some additional context and guidance, both for Councilors and for the members of the EPDP WG. I?m copying Kurt, Rafik and Marika, so this can be forwarded to the EPDP WG list. >> >> - During the EPDP WG Chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team made clear there would need to be two distinct phases of the work of the EPDP, each with its own Initial Report and Final Report. Phase One would focus on the Temporary Specification with an imposed 12-month deadline of May 25, 2019 due to the Board?s decision to invoke the Temp Spec. Phase Two would focus on the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data after the gating questions from Phase One were addressed and the GNSO Council agreed. Here is the Charter language specifying the Objectives and timing: >> >> ?To develop, at a minimum, an Initial Report and a Final Report regarding the EPDP Team?s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data as well as regarding the EPDP Team?s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data, pursuant to the processes described in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO Expedited PDP Manual. Work on recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data should not commence until all gating questions have been answered. Similarly, delivery of the Final Report on the EPDP Team?s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data to the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board (before 25 May 2019) should not be held up by work that may still be ongoing in relation to the EPDP Team?s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data.? >> >> - The Phase One Initial Report was delivered on 21 November and public comments were received, analyzed and incorporated. During the chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team agreed, after much negotiation, to consider initiating the Phase Two work after the publication of the Phase One Initial Report, rather than after the Phase One Final Report, with the hope/expectation that the gating questions would have been sufficiently answered and the foundation for Phase Two would have been established. Unfortunately, as we all know, the Phase One Initial Report was not sufficiently complete, the gating questions were not yet addressed, and much more work was required before Phase Two could begin. Fortunately, with the current Phase One Final Report nearly complete, the EPDP will be able to begin work on Phase Two in short order. >> >> - As everyone should have seen in my email to the Council list last night (responding to Rafik?s note submitting the draft Final Report and Council Motion), our proposed motion will approve the Phase One Final Report and Consensus Policy recommendations AND signal the Council?s agreement (through non-objection) that the Phase Two work can begin. This is a significant moment where the EPDP WG is recommending a Consensus Policy replacement to the Temp Spec to be confirmed by Council and ICANN Board, it has substantially answered the gating questions, and it also agreed to defer certain issues to Phase Two. This is the definition of bottom-up consensus policy-making, and the GNSO Council looks forward to approving the Phase One Final Report, delivering it to the Board, and to supporting the EPDP WG in its Phase Two work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, or Uniform Access Model. >> >> To summarize: >> >> - The EPDP WG was chartered to have two distinct phases, one on the Temp Spec, the other on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data and the Annex to the Temporary Specification (Important Issues for Further Community Action). >> >> - The current report is the Final Report from Phase One. >> - The GNSO Council is expected to approve the Phase One Final Report replacing the Temp Spec AND authorize the EPDP WG to move to Phase Two. >> - Following GNSO PDP operating procedures and the ICANN bylaws, the EPDP WG recommendations to replace the Temp Spec will need to be approved by GNSO Council and the ICANN Board to ensure they are Consensus Policies and enforceable by ICANN Org. >> - The EPDP Charter is clear that the work on the System for Standardized Access is the next critical phase and it will receive the full support of the GNSO Council and ICANN Org. >> - Without Council approval of the Phase One Final Report, and without a new Consensus Policy to replace the Temp Spec before May 25, 2019, there will be no work on Phase Two. >> >> I hope this helps provide clarity around the views and intent of the GNSO Council as we initiated this important work and our expectations for the coming weeks. I appreciate the opportunity to review and reflect on the Charter and the work of the EPDP and I?m impressed by the group?s output in a very compressed timeframe. >> >> Please let me know if anyone has follow up questions. Otherwise, we?ll look forward to considering the EPDP WG Phase One Final Report during our 21 February and/or 4 March GNSO Council meetings. >> >> Regards, >> >> Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair >> >> From: council [](mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org) On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo >> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 12:36 PM >> To: council at gnso.icann.org >> Cc: Mark Svancarek (CELA) [](mailto:marksv at microsoft.com); Steve DelBianco [](mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org); Margie Milam [](mailto:margiemilam at fb.com) >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval >> Importance: High >> >> Dear all, >> >> I?ve been asked to send the below message to you from Margie, on behalf of the BC?s EPDP participants. I?m copying them here for ease. >> >> We?d appreciate your thoughts. >> >> Thanks >> >> Marie >> >> Hi ? >> >> Thank you for sharing this note. I am genuinely confused about the directions given to the GNSO Council since this report ? although it is misnamed a ?Final Report? is really only an ?Phase 1 Interim Report? since the PDP has not concluded, and the charter questions have not been answered. As a result, is seems that the voting thresholds to create a consensus policy and the vote required under the Bylaws do not yet apply until the Phase 2 work is complete. >> >> I understand the desire to call this a Final Report, but there is a significant amount of work that has not been done yet, as outlined in the draft report being circulated, with key areas missing, such as: >> >> ?the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. (p.3, Mission and Scope, emphasis added) >> >> This passage sets forth the minimum requirements necessary for successful completion of the EPDP. However, one set of questions (see p.7 of the charter) -- dealing with access to non-public registration data -- is entirely unaddressed by the EPDP team. Further, according to the charter: >> >> System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data >> >> Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. (p.7, emphasis added) >> >> The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the ?gating questions? (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see [EPDP initial report](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_epdp-2Dgtld-2Dregistration-2Ddata-2Dspecs-2Dinitial-2D21nov18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=XJxBprwNEXjSszkwuEBJGlqcEFtfl-khXMFCNZGnmrs&s=G9xxOW1qkKuaPQ6d3WXhn61IYOR9wT9hMeiSXE_W6L0&e=)). Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year. Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team?s work. What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual ?final? report (not merely a report on the conclusion of Phase 1), inclusive of Phases 1 and 2. >> >> Additionally, Section 2(j) of the charter addresses ?Reasonable Access.? In [what is labeled the draft final report](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_EOTSFGRD_g.-2BDraft-2BFinal-2BReport-3Fpreview-3D_102145109_104236114_EPDP-2520Team-2520Draft-2520Final-2520Report-2520-2D-2520CLEAN-2520-2D-2520version-25208-2520February-25202019.docx&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=XJxBprwNEXjSszkwuEBJGlqcEFtfl-khXMFCNZGnmrs&s=Do1uJaFk34KL6cF91PTuJz1b74Nvra5w1sYZzxu_6rU&e=), the charter?s section 2(j) questions are only partially answered, and included is a recommendation that the rest of the details be worked out in the implementation phase. Again, the EPDP team?s work is not yet finished, and it is premature to consider the current ?consensus calls? instructive since this is an incomplete report, and true consensus can only truly be determined when the entire package (Phase 1 and Phase 2) of recommendations is developed. >> >> As a result, the report should be renamed, and the Council?s instructions should be updated accordingly. >> >> All the best, >> >> Margie >> >> From: Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Rafik Dammak >> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:43 AM >> To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" >> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval >> >> hi all, >> >> Please find below the email sent to GNSO council to submit the motion for council consideration to approve the final report. >> >> You can find the latest version of the report posted in word and redline version on the wiki space [https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_EOTSFGRD_g.-2BDraft-2BFinal-2BReport&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=2bKdeEUYzoij8WxciKZVb5VVqVK3V3yRZ0UzXrF7ptk&s=O_3E1UObrwyVNxfNzSbSJ486aS60ILTVbUwdZSmPYPM&e=). >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: mar. 12 f?vr. 2019 ? 08:10 >> Subject: Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval >> To: Council GNSO >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard. >> >> The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik Dammak >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Dear Councillors: >> >> We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. >> >> The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document. >> >> The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of ?quiet period? to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report. >> >> With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where: >> >> ?The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation >> >> ?The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation >> >> ?The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion. >> >> In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final. >> >> Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow. >> >> We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations. >> >> Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals. >> >> Best regards, >> >> EPDP Leadership Team >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 17 09:27:38 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 07:27:38 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would like to know why there is an invitation for yet another Special Council Meeting in my inbox; why is Council leadership arranging these without asking us first, or at least surveying through a Doodle poll to see what date/time might work for members of the Council? It is highly disrespectful for these to arrive in our inboxes with the expectation that we will just attend, particularly when the date scheduled is when some (like myself) will be in the air traveling to Kobe. It isn't possible for all of us to drop everything and to attend all of these meetings. We seem to work to arbitrary deadlines that might help ICANN staff achieve their KPIs but these are having an undue burden on volunteers. I am not taking this conversation to the Council list but I am raising it here as we have a member of Council leadership on this list. Please consult with us before scheduling special Council meetings. Personally, I am not satisfied with the level of communication between Council leadership and members of the Council in general, and if this does not improve, I will take the conversation there. I would also like to know why the Council Leadership list has closed archives. Thank you. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, February 14, 2019 7:18 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Hi, > Yes, that?s what I meant in my first email yesterday saying I can make it ?either tomorrow or on GNSO call?. Tomorrow is discussion, vote next week on GNSo call ? we have enough time to prepare and approve NCSG statement if needed as we have two policy calls (unless you wanted to make it tomorrow during the discussion. But I think best we do it before vote as with Red Cross). > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Thu 14. Feb 2019 at 04:18, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> I was wrong and there is not vote scheduled for tomorrow. If things go well at EPDP and we don't see much changes to the report then this report is acceptable and the statement stands. >> >> But I wanted to know if you could ask for more details about the informal IRT process. I don't know if you have been briefed or not but it is good to make sure that by informal IRT they don't mean just CPs and ICANN org. So if someone has clarified this before would be grateful to get some clarification. Otherwise, things are looking good please at least have a cursory review of the report yourself but we will, of course, be discussing the report on Friday. We can work on the statement now that we have more time. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:18 PM farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Thanks all >>> >>> We are not really saying anything new (we said similar things in our public comments). Anyhow, I read the report again today, and re-did the statement sent it to NCSG mailing list and Tanya said will kindly read it during the meeting. >>> >>> I leave it to the policy committee to decide on reading the statement or the best course of action. the link to Google doc at the bottom of this email. >>> >>> @@@@ >>> >>> NCSG statement/ For GNSO Council Meeting, 14 February >>> >>> Despite an unrealistic timeline, EPDP achieved its goal and delivered the final report. We are positive about the final report and our councilors have voted for its approval. But we are concerned with some aspects of the report and would like to record our concerns. >>> >>> - >>> >>> The report has included additional potentially personal and sensitive data elements that are ?identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy." There was no justifiable reason to include these additional data elements in the report, nor was it justifiable to formulate purposes that could relate to processing these additional elements. These additional data elements were not included in Temp Spec either. We are concerned about subjecting these additional data elements to this policy and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that due to this addition even more sensitive and personal data might be disclosed to third parties on a global scale. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain name registrants and providing some with less data protection is not justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". >>> >>> - We believe "disclosure" of data to third parties is not an ICANN purpose for processing the data. >>> >>> We thank the EPDP, its leadership and ICANN staff for achieving this milestone. We hope that with this policy by cultivating a privacy-respecting culture at ICANN, protecting the personal data of domain name registrants becomes a norm, and not remain an exception. >>> >>> Feel free too correct mistakes, change the tone remove unnessecary rant etc. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M8M0kaQSdQD3CC1HmpSTwMIKcufCT0ekVu7yHgx_f5w/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:32 PM Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I will not be able to attend Friday?s call as i will be traveling, wanted to have my apologies noted. I will try to not miss Monday?s call instead. >>>> >>>> I also do think that we should not delay the approval of the final report by voting no but expressing our reservations is the best approach and there will always be time for this statement to be registered after the vote. >>>> >>>> I hope our EPDP members will be able to help come up with a consensus statement and have Tatiana read it on our behalf. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Arsene >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 13 Feb 2019, at 20:01, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Tatiana. I will send more soon. >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:19 AM Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> As those points align with my position, I can certainly make them before voting yes ? either tomorrow or on the GNSO call. I guess there will be time for expressing opinions. If this would be a consensus position of the NCSG, one of us can make a statement, as we did with Red Cross. I guess we have enough time to prepare a consensus statement before the GNSO vote, if necessary. >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Tanya >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed 13. Feb 2019 at 09:12, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG consensus position. so just take them as a personal opinion for now >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of the following points: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and delivered the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of the group and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, but we would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report. Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all heros. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements matrix have expanded and include "Additional data elements as identified by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which can be sensitive, personal information of domain name registrants. We have raised this concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even mention the additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base some of the purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The response that we received was that this provision and the related purposes will not lead to the expansion of registration data elements. This is not a satisfactory response. we would like to register our concern and warn the ICANN community and domain name registrants that registration data elements might be expanded and include even more sensitive data, due to this addition, that can be disclosed to third parties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the sake of best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to send us their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I?ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, however, my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP team members IMHO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks again Rafik, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Elsa >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in meeting of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a timing issue and Friday is least worse option. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are the same like for the previous calls. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a question though, isn?t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday 14th? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And if there?s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for more than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our conversation would be more constructive and efficient. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> E. >>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> with regard to calls, I suggest: >>>>>>>>>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation by recommendation based on level of consensus ) >>>>>>>>>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP >>>>>>>>>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le jeu. 7 f?vr. 2019 ? 23:49, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and giving any relevant update. >>>>>>>>>>>> - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30 with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>>>>>>> Consultant >>>>>>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Elsa Saade >>>>>>>> Consultant >>>>>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>>>>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 16:28:24 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:28:24 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, reminder to review this draft comment Best, Rafik Le lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:18, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > hi all, > > we have this draft comment for review too. > I was reached previously by ICANN staff if we were planning to submit > comment and indicated yes. I asked for few days extension and that should > be ok. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:12 > Subject: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating > Standards for Specific Reviews > To: NCSG > > > Hi all, > > Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated > operating standards for specific review > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit > > Please review the draft comment and share your edits and comments using > "suggestion" mode in the google doc. You can also share your thoughts here > too for discussion. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Feb 18 18:04:17 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:04:17 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85f1b11a-b164-d4d5-3b40-bb2831d297ae@mail.utoronto.ca> Still relevant in my view SP On 2019-02-17 02:15, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: I am just catching up on emails; was this messaged forwarded to the Council list? If not, is it still relevant? Thanks. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:54 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: Could one of you kind councillors please post this message to the council list? Thanks! Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:48:23 -0500 From: Stephanie Perrin To: council at gnso.icann.org It used to be called a "unified" access model. When did we decide to start calling it a "uniform" access model? Since it can never be uniform, I think it is a misleading term. Unified gives me enough heartburn, how about sticking to "System for Standardized Access". Stephanie Perrin On 2019-02-12 14:07, Drazek, Keith via council wrote: Hi all, Thanks for forwarding this note from the BC?s EPDP WG reps. I?ll be happy to provide some additional context and guidance, both for Councilors and for the members of the EPDP WG. I?m copying Kurt, Rafik and Marika, so this can be forwarded to the EPDP WG list. 1. During the EPDP WG Chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team made clear there would need to be two distinct phases of the work of the EPDP, each with its own Initial Report and Final Report. Phase One would focus on the Temporary Specification with an imposed 12-month deadline of May 25, 2019 due to the Board?s decision to invoke the Temp Spec. Phase Two would focus on the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data after the gating questions from Phase One were addressed and the GNSO Council agreed. Here is the Charter language specifying the Objectives and timing: ?To develop, at a minimum, an Initial Report and a Final Report regarding the EPDP Team?s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data as well as regarding the EPDP Team?s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data, pursuant to the processes described in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO Expedited PDP Manual. Work on recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data should not commence until all gating questions have been answered. Similarly, delivery of the Final Report on the EPDP Team?s recommendations on issues relating to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data to the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board (before 25 May 2019) should not be held up by work that may still be ongoing in relation to the EPDP Team?s recommendations for a System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data.? 1. The Phase One Initial Report was delivered on 21 November and public comments were received, analyzed and incorporated. During the chartering process, the GNSO Council drafting team agreed, after much negotiation, to consider initiating the Phase Two work after the publication of the Phase One Initial Report, rather than after the Phase One Final Report, with the hope/expectation that the gating questions would have been sufficiently answered and the foundation for Phase Two would have been established. Unfortunately, as we all know, the Phase One Initial Report was not sufficiently complete, the gating questions were not yet addressed, and much more work was required before Phase Two could begin. Fortunately, with the current Phase One Final Report nearly complete, the EPDP will be able to begin work on Phase Two in short order. 1. As everyone should have seen in my email to the Council list last night (responding to Rafik?s note submitting the draft Final Report and Council Motion), our proposed motion will approve the Phase One Final Report and Consensus Policy recommendations AND signal the Council?s agreement (through non-objection) that the Phase Two work can begin. This is a significant moment where the EPDP WG is recommending a Consensus Policy replacement to the Temp Spec to be confirmed by Council and ICANN Board, it has substantially answered the gating questions, and it also agreed to defer certain issues to Phase Two. This is the definition of bottom-up consensus policy-making, and the GNSO Council looks forward to approving the Phase One Final Report, delivering it to the Board, and to supporting the EPDP WG in its Phase Two work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, or Uniform Access Model. To summarize: * The EPDP WG was chartered to have two distinct phases, one on the Temp Spec, the other on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data and the Annex to the Temporary Specification (Important Issues for Further Community Action). * The current report is the Final Report from Phase One. * The GNSO Council is expected to approve the Phase One Final Report replacing the Temp Spec AND authorize the EPDP WG to move to Phase Two. * Following GNSO PDP operating procedures and the ICANN bylaws, the EPDP WG recommendations to replace the Temp Spec will need to be approved by GNSO Council and the ICANN Board to ensure they are Consensus Policies and enforceable by ICANN Org. * The EPDP Charter is clear that the work on the System for Standardized Access is the next critical phase and it will receive the full support of the GNSO Council and ICANN Org. * Without Council approval of the Phase One Final Report, and without a new Consensus Policy to replace the Temp Spec before May 25, 2019, there will be no work on Phase Two. I hope this helps provide clarity around the views and intent of the GNSO Council as we initiated this important work and our expectations for the coming weeks. I appreciate the opportunity to review and reflect on the Charter and the work of the EPDP and I?m impressed by the group?s output in a very compressed timeframe. Please let me know if anyone has follow up questions. Otherwise, we?ll look forward to considering the EPDP WG Phase One Final Report during our 21 February and/or 4 March GNSO Council meetings. Regards, Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair From: council On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 12:36 PM To: council at gnso.icann.org Cc: Mark Svancarek (CELA) ; Steve DelBianco ; Margie Milam Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval Importance: High Dear all, I?ve been asked to send the below message to you from Margie, on behalf of the BC?s EPDP participants. I?m copying them here for ease. We?d appreciate your thoughts. Thanks Marie Hi ? Thank you for sharing this note. I am genuinely confused about the directions given to the GNSO Council since this report ? although it is misnamed a ?Final Report? is really only an ?Phase 1 Interim Report? since the PDP has not concluded, and the charter questions have not been answered. As a result, is seems that the voting thresholds to create a consensus policy and the vote required under the Bylaws do not yet apply until the Phase 2 work is complete. I understand the desire to call this a Final Report, but there is a significant amount of work that has not been done yet, as outlined in the draft report being circulated, with key areas missing, such as: ?the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. (p.3, Mission and Scope, emphasis added) This passage sets forth the minimum requirements necessary for successful completion of the EPDP. However, one set of questions (see p.7 of the charter) -- dealing with access to non-public registration data -- is entirely unaddressed by the EPDP team. Further, according to the charter: System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. (p.7, emphasis added) The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the ?gating questions? (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report). Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year. Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team?s work. What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual ?final? report (not merely a report on the conclusion of Phase 1), inclusive of Phases 1 and 2. Additionally, Section 2(j) of the charter addresses ?Reasonable Access.? In what is labeled the draft final report, the charter?s section 2(j) questions are only partially answered, and included is a recommendation that the rest of the details be worked out in the implementation phase. Again, the EPDP team?s work is not yet finished, and it is premature to consider the current ?consensus calls? instructive since this is an incomplete report, and true consensus can only truly be determined when the entire package (Phase 1 and Phase 2) of recommendations is developed. As a result, the report should be renamed, and the Council?s instructions should be updated accordingly. All the best, Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team > on behalf of Rafik Dammak > Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:43 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" > Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval hi all, Please find below the email sent to GNSO council to submit the motion for council consideration to approve the final report. You can find the latest version of the report posted in word and redline version on the wiki space https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: mar. 12 f?vr. 2019 ? 08:10 Subject: Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval To: Council GNSO > Hi all, I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard. The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Councillors: We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document. The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of ?quiet period? to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report. With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where: ? The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation ? The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation ? The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion. In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final. Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow. We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations. Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals. Best regards, EPDP Leadership Team _______________________________________________ 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 arsenebaguma at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 12:58:28 2019 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:58:28 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I have now reviewed the comment and i believe it is in good shape. I did have just one concern with regards to the accountability effort required of RT members (Item N.2) I do believe it is a good thing to emphasize on this and make it a must but my worry is that this may lead to less volunteers stepping up for the role. This is yet another volunteer role, where we need to encourage people to consider but if we are too strong in what we require them to do, then we might have less people. The reporting requirement to the nominating body has never been effective for all of our representatives at different levels and I think the best way would simply be to request a reasonable level of reporting requirement from our reps rather than making it mandatory. And we therefore should expect them to report whenever there is anything substantial that needs to be shared with the nominating group. I hope this makes sense. Regards, Arsene 2019-02-18 15:28 UTC+01:00, Rafik Dammak : > hi all, > > reminder to review this draft comment > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:18, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> hi all, >> >> we have this draft comment for review too. >> I was reached previously by ICANN staff if we were planning to submit >> comment and indicated yes. I asked for few days extension and that should >> be ok. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:12 >> Subject: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating >> Standards for Specific Reviews >> To: NCSG >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated >> operating standards for specific review >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit >> >> Please review the draft comment and share your edits and comments using >> "suggestion" mode in the google doc. You can also share your thoughts >> here >> too for discussion. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Feb 19 14:15:47 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:15:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80e27e09-63b5-affa-1ece-30c70cc53886@mail.utoronto.ca> I must say I had the same concerns Arsene....I did not meet the standard described here, in my recent work on the RDS REview team....it was exhausting work enough, and as for reporting back. I did not notice much interest from the nominating committee (could have been largely due to simultaneous EPDP work) but I think it holds true for other reviews too. Hard to find volunteers for these heavy research and drafting jobs... Stephanie On 2019-02-19 05:58, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: Hi all, I have now reviewed the comment and i believe it is in good shape. I did have just one concern with regards to the accountability effort required of RT members (Item N.2) I do believe it is a good thing to emphasize on this and make it a must but my worry is that this may lead to less volunteers stepping up for the role. This is yet another volunteer role, where we need to encourage people to consider but if we are too strong in what we require them to do, then we might have less people. The reporting requirement to the nominating body has never been effective for all of our representatives at different levels and I think the best way would simply be to request a reasonable level of reporting requirement from our reps rather than making it mandatory. And we therefore should expect them to report whenever there is anything substantial that needs to be shared with the nominating group. I hope this makes sense. Regards, Arsene 2019-02-18 15:28 UTC+01:00, Rafik Dammak : hi all, reminder to review this draft comment Best, Rafik Le lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:18, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : hi all, we have this draft comment for review too. I was reached previously by ICANN staff if we were planning to submit comment and indicated yes. I asked for few days extension and that should be ok. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:12 Subject: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews To: NCSG Hi all, Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated operating standards for specific review https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit Please review the draft comment and share your edits and comments using "suggestion" mode in the google doc. You can also share your thoughts here too for discussion. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 19:41:07 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:41:07 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews In-Reply-To: <80e27e09-63b5-affa-1ece-30c70cc53886@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <80e27e09-63b5-affa-1ece-30c70cc53886@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, the edits were resolved and accepted https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit . I think the comment complement the one submitted by council https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reviews-standards-17dec18/2019q1/000000.html . I would also to remind everyone to review the draft as the deadline for submission is tomorrow. Best, Rafik Le mar. 19 f?vr. 2019 ? 21:15, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > I must say I had the same concerns Arsene....I did not meet the standard > described here, in my recent work on the RDS REview team....it was > exhausting work enough, and as for reporting back. I did not notice much > interest from the nominating committee (could have been largely due to > simultaneous EPDP work) but I think it holds true for other reviews too. > Hard to find volunteers for these heavy research and drafting jobs... > > Stephanie > On 2019-02-19 05:58, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have now reviewed the comment and i believe it is in good shape. I > did have just one concern with regards to the accountability effort > required of RT members (Item N.2) > > I do believe it is a good thing to emphasize on this and make it a > must but my worry is that this may lead to less volunteers stepping up > for the role. This is yet another volunteer role, where we need to > encourage people to consider but if we are too strong in what we > require them to do, then we might have less people. > > The reporting requirement to the nominating body has never been > effective for all of our representatives at different levels and I > think the best way would simply be to request a reasonable level of > reporting requirement from our reps rather than making it mandatory. > And we therefore should expect them to report whenever there is > anything substantial that needs to be shared with the nominating > group. > > I hope this makes sense. > > Regards, > Arsene > > 2019-02-18 15:28 UTC+01:00, Rafik Dammak : > > hi all, > > reminder to review this draft comment > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:18, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > > > hi all, > > we have this draft comment for review too. > I was reached previously by ICANN staff if we were planning to submit > comment and indicated yes. I asked for few days extension and that should > be ok. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:12 > Subject: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating > Standards for Specific Reviews > To: NCSG > > > Hi all, > > Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated > operating standards for specific reviewhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit > > Please review the draft comment and share your edits and comments using > "suggestion" mode in the google doc. You can also share your thoughts > here > too for discussion. > > 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 14:27:44 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 21:27:44 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews In-Reply-To: References: <80e27e09-63b5-affa-1ece-30c70cc53886@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi all, if I don't hear a strong objection in coming hours, I will submit the attached version. Best, Rafik Le mer. 20 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:41, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > the edits were resolved and accepted > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit > . > I think the comment complement the one submitted by council > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reviews-standards-17dec18/2019q1/000000.html > . > > I would also to remind everyone to review the draft as the deadline for > submission is tomorrow. > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 19 f?vr. 2019 ? 21:15, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > >> I must say I had the same concerns Arsene....I did not meet the standard >> described here, in my recent work on the RDS REview team....it was >> exhausting work enough, and as for reporting back. I did not notice much >> interest from the nominating committee (could have been largely due to >> simultaneous EPDP work) but I think it holds true for other reviews too. >> Hard to find volunteers for these heavy research and drafting jobs... >> >> Stephanie >> On 2019-02-19 05:58, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have now reviewed the comment and i believe it is in good shape. I >> did have just one concern with regards to the accountability effort >> required of RT members (Item N.2) >> >> I do believe it is a good thing to emphasize on this and make it a >> must but my worry is that this may lead to less volunteers stepping up >> for the role. This is yet another volunteer role, where we need to >> encourage people to consider but if we are too strong in what we >> require them to do, then we might have less people. >> >> The reporting requirement to the nominating body has never been >> effective for all of our representatives at different levels and I >> think the best way would simply be to request a reasonable level of >> reporting requirement from our reps rather than making it mandatory. >> And we therefore should expect them to report whenever there is >> anything substantial that needs to be shared with the nominating >> group. >> >> I hope this makes sense. >> >> Regards, >> Arsene >> >> 2019-02-18 15:28 UTC+01:00, Rafik Dammak : >> >> hi all, >> >> reminder to review this draft comment >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:18, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >> >> hi all, >> >> we have this draft comment for review too. >> I was reached previously by ICANN staff if we were planning to submit >> comment and indicated yes. I asked for few days extension and that should >> be ok. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: lun. 11 f?vr. 2019 ? 07:12 >> Subject: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating >> Standards for Specific Reviews >> To: NCSG >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated >> operating standards for specific reviewhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit >> >> Please review the draft comment and share your edits and comments using >> "suggestion" mode in the google doc. You can also share your thoughts >> here >> too for discussion. >> >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews_ - NCSG Comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 126652 bytes Desc: not available URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 23:26:52 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:26:52 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: <0FA0E91B-43D6-4454-9FAB-5B7FEC515FB8@icannpolicy.ninja> References: <0FA0E91B-43D6-4454-9FAB-5B7FEC515FB8@icannpolicy.ninja> Message-ID: Hey folks, Who is to read this statement in tomorrow?s meeting? I also have a couple of comments! The part on asking GNSO to be more hands on might be framing the liaison role in a way that could frame Rafik, so I?d suggest we tweak the wording a bit. And there are a couple of grammatical minor errors that we might need to change. Thanks a lot to all those who worked on the statement from amongst us and beyond us :) Best, Elsa ? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Amr Elsadr Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:21 PM Subject: NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Hi, > > A few hours ago, The GNSO EPDP Team on the Temporary Specification for > gTLD Registration Data held its last call, wrapping up its final report and > recommendations for the first phase of the EPDP. The GNSO Council is > scheduled to vote on a motion to adopt this report tomorrow (Thursday, > February 21). > > As discussed during this week?s monthly NCSG policy call, the NCSG > representatives on the EPDP Team have a few concerns (which could possibly > be characterized as observations) regarding some procedural issues on > events that took place throughout the course of the EPDP. > > We have drafted a brief comment addressing these concerns, and ask that > one of our Council representatives read this in to the record during > tomorrow?s GNSO Council meeting before the vote takes place, and have it > attached to the vote result. A link to the comment is available below, and > the comment itself is rather self-explanatory. Please take a look, and feel > free to ask us any questions on this. > > We look forward to beginning the next phase of this policy development > process. > > NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the > GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data > > > Thanks. > > Amr (On behalf of the NCSG representatives to the EPDP Team) > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 23:37:01 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 18:37:01 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: References: <0FA0E91B-43D6-4454-9FAB-5B7FEC515FB8@icannpolicy.ninja> Message-ID: <15731671-8CE1-4292-A4C4-F25D7B38B441@gmail.com> Thank you Amr and all who worked on it. I think it might be long for a voice reading, isn?t it? I think is best if someone involved in the EPDP reads it, of course, if no one can do it I can always step in. Best, Mart?n > On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Elsa S wrote: > > Hey folks, > > Who is to read this statement in tomorrow?s meeting? I also have a couple of comments! The part on asking GNSO to be more hands on might be framing the liaison role in a way that could frame Rafik, so I?d suggest we tweak the wording a bit. And there are a couple of grammatical minor errors that we might need to change. > > Thanks a lot to all those who worked on the statement from amongst us and beyond us :) > > Best, > > Elsa > ? > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:21 PM > Subject: NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >> Hi, >> >> A few hours ago, The GNSO EPDP Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data held its last call, wrapping up its final report and recommendations for the first phase of the EPDP. The GNSO Council is scheduled to vote on a motion to adopt this report tomorrow (Thursday, February 21). >> >> As discussed during this week?s monthly NCSG policy call, the NCSG representatives on the EPDP Team have a few concerns (which could possibly be characterized as observations) regarding some procedural issues on events that took place throughout the course of the EPDP. >> >> We have drafted a brief comment addressing these concerns, and ask that one of our Council representatives read this in to the record during tomorrow?s GNSO Council meeting before the vote takes place, and have it attached to the vote result. A link to the comment is available below, and the comment itself is rather self-explanatory. Please take a look, and feel free to ask us any questions on this. >> >> We look forward to beginning the next phase of this policy development process. >> >> NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr (On behalf of the NCSG representatives to the EPDP Team) >> -- >> -- >> >> Elsa Saade >> Consultant >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 23:39:59 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 22:39:59 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: <15731671-8CE1-4292-A4C4-F25D7B38B441@gmail.com> References: <0FA0E91B-43D6-4454-9FAB-5B7FEC515FB8@icannpolicy.ninja> <15731671-8CE1-4292-A4C4-F25D7B38B441@gmail.com> Message-ID: Guys, I would suggest that Ayden reads it :) Cheers, Tanya On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 22:37, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Amr and all who worked on it. I think it might be long for a > voice reading, isn?t it? I think is best if someone involved in the EPDP > reads it, of course, if no one can do it I can always step in. > > Best, > Mart?n > > On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Elsa S wrote: > > Hey folks, > > Who is to read this statement in tomorrow?s meeting? I also have a couple > of comments! The part on asking GNSO to be more hands on might be framing > the liaison role in a way that could frame Rafik, so I?d suggest we tweak > the wording a bit. And there are a couple of grammatical minor errors that > we might need to change. > > Thanks a lot to all those who worked on the statement from amongst us and > beyond us :) > > Best, > > Elsa > ? > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:21 PM > Subject: NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report > of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data > > Hi, >> >> A few hours ago, The GNSO EPDP Team on the Temporary Specification for >> gTLD Registration Data held its last call, wrapping up its final report and >> recommendations for the first phase of the EPDP. The GNSO Council is >> scheduled to vote on a motion to adopt this report tomorrow (Thursday, >> February 21). >> >> As discussed during this week?s monthly NCSG policy call, the NCSG >> representatives on the EPDP Team have a few concerns (which could possibly >> be characterized as observations) regarding some procedural issues on >> events that took place throughout the course of the EPDP. >> >> We have drafted a brief comment addressing these concerns, and ask that >> one of our Council representatives read this in to the record during >> tomorrow?s GNSO Council meeting before the vote takes place, and have it >> attached to the vote result. A link to the comment is available below, and >> the comment itself is rather self-explanatory. Please take a look, and feel >> free to ask us any questions on this. >> >> We look forward to beginning the next phase of this policy development >> process. >> >> NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the >> GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr (On behalf of the NCSG representatives to the EPDP Team) >> > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > > > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 23:44:20 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 18:44:20 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: References: <0FA0E91B-43D6-4454-9FAB-5B7FEC515FB8@icannpolicy.ninja> <15731671-8CE1-4292-A4C4-F25D7B38B441@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DE944C0-7E5D-48FE-AB7B-9C58A2547F22@gmail.com> Jajaja I was trying not to point the finger, but yes, Ayden would be ideal. Martin > On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Guys, I would suggest that Ayden reads it :) > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 22:37, Martin Pablo Silva Valent > wrote: > Thank you Amr and all who worked on it. I think it might be long for a voice reading, isn?t it? I think is best if someone involved in the EPDP reads it, of course, if no one can do it I can always step in. > > Best, > Mart?n > >> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Elsa S > wrote: >> >> Hey folks, >> >> Who is to read this statement in tomorrow?s meeting? I also have a couple of comments! The part on asking GNSO to be more hands on might be framing the liaison role in a way that could frame Rafik, so I?d suggest we tweak the wording a bit. And there are a couple of grammatical minor errors that we might need to change. >> >> Thanks a lot to all those who worked on the statement from amongst us and beyond us :) >> >> Best, >> >> Elsa >> ? >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Amr Elsadr > >> Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:21 PM >> Subject: NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >>> Hi, >>> >>> A few hours ago, The GNSO EPDP Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data held its last call, wrapping up its final report and recommendations for the first phase of the EPDP. The GNSO Council is scheduled to vote on a motion to adopt this report tomorrow (Thursday, February 21). >>> >>> As discussed during this week?s monthly NCSG policy call, the NCSG representatives on the EPDP Team have a few concerns (which could possibly be characterized as observations) regarding some procedural issues on events that took place throughout the course of the EPDP. >>> >>> We have drafted a brief comment addressing these concerns, and ask that one of our Council representatives read this in to the record during tomorrow?s GNSO Council meeting before the vote takes place, and have it attached to the vote result. A link to the comment is available below, and the comment itself is rather self-explanatory. Please take a look, and feel free to ask us any questions on this. >>> >>> We look forward to beginning the next phase of this policy development process. >>> >>> NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr (On behalf of the NCSG representatives to the EPDP Team) >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Elsa Saade >>> Consultant >>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Elsa Saade >> Consultant >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Thu Feb 21 00:05:55 2019 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:05:55 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: References: <0FA0E91B-43D6-4454-9FAB-5B7FEC515FB8@icannpolicy.ninja> Message-ID: <8b205e65-d200-c6e4-9c4c-1fbcc87865d3@digitaldiscretion.ca> Yes I tried to login to fix the grammaticals but was not allowed....would be happy to do that if I could get into the google doc sp On 2019-02-20 16:26, Elsa S wrote: > Hey folks, > > Who is to read this statement in tomorrow?s meeting? I also have a > couple of comments! The part on asking GNSO to be more hands on might > be framing the liaison role in a way that could frame Rafik, so I?d > suggest we tweak the wording a bit. And there are a couple of > grammatical minor errors that we might need to change. > > Thanks a lot to all those who worked on the statement from amongst us > and beyond us :) > > Best, > > Elsa > ? > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Amr Elsadr* > Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:21 PM > Subject: NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final > Report of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD > Registration Data >> >> Hi, >> >> A few hours ago, The GNSO EPDP Team on?the Temporary >> Specification for gTLD Registration Data held its last call, >> wrapping up its final report and recommendations for the first >> phase of the EPDP. The GNSO Council is scheduled to vote on a >> motion to adopt this report tomorrow (Thursday, February 21). >> >> As discussed during this week?s monthly NCSG policy call, the >> NCSG representatives on the EPDP Team have a few concerns (which >> could possibly be characterized as observations) regarding some >> procedural issues on events that took place throughout the course >> of the EPDP. >> >> We have drafted a brief comment addressing these concerns, and >> ask that one of our Council representatives read this in to the >> record during tomorrow?s GNSO Council meeting before the vote >> takes place, and have it attached to the vote result. A link to >> the comment is available below, and the comment itself is rather >> self-explanatory. Please take a look, and feel free to ask us any >> questions on this. >> >> We look forward to beginning the next phase of this policy >> development process. >> >> NCSG Comment on the GNSO Council Motion to Adopt the Final Report >> of the GNSO EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD >> Registration Data >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr (On behalf of the NCSG representatives to the EPDP Team) >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Elsa Saade >> Consultant >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 07:27:54 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 14:27:54 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment - Report on CSC Effectiveness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, please find this draft comment for PC review. it is straightforward one. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix Date: sam. 23 f?vr. 2019 ? 13:03 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft comment - Report on CSC Effectiveness To: Dear all, Please have a look and make comments and suggestions on this draft. Submission deadline is Feb 25th and it has to pass through the PC by then as well! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRbrBd0uBrn41IXFwo03FdNLjJHqzIPb3KVYqU7nvsg/edit Thank you for your time, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Feb 24 17:26:34 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:26:34 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: just a gentle jog...we are a week late on this. I am stuck on the three Answers to our planning challenges...here is the draft so far, comments welcome cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: FW: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:03:28 +0000 From: Maryam Bakoshi To: Stephanie Perrin -- Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation got Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 From: Maryam Bakoshi Date: Monday, 11 February 2019 at 08:47 To: "stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca" Subject: Fwd: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board Dear Stephanie, Please see below deadline for Board questions which is the 18th of February. ? Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 Begin forwarded message: From: Vinciane Koenigsfeld > Date: 11 February 2019 at 08:13:02 GMT To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" > Cc: Board Ops Team > Subject: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board Gentle reminder ? deadline for Questions to the Board ? Monday 18 February From: Vinciane Koenigsfeld > Date: Friday 18 January 2019 at 18:27 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" > Cc: David Olive >, Board Ops Team > Subject: ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, Questions from your Groups to the Board - Please reply no later than Monday 18 February 2019 On behalf of the Board, I would like to wish each and every one of you, a HAPPY NEW YEAR! In 2019, the Board and I are determined to work with you more closely than ever to make it a productive and successful year for ICANN?s future. We are very much looking forward to welcoming you and discussing with you during ICANN64 which will take place in Kobe between 9-14 March 2019. This time in particular, the Board would like to listen to your suggestions in order to make ICANN?s big plans successful. What does it mean? In 2018, besides GDPR, the Community, the Board and ICANN org have worked tirelessly on several key plans that are now or soon will be out for public comment: - the draft Strategic Plan 2021-2025 was published a little before Christmas; - the first consultation paper on a 2-Year budgeting process was also published before Christmas; - and the draft FY21-25 Operating Plan & Financial Projections will be posted before this summer. In addition, based on community feedback and discussions at ICANN 63, we will begin a consultation in Kobe on the status of ICANN?s governance?s model, including whether and how it should evolve to continue to serve the global ICANN community. In the aggregate, these plans are comprehensive and address the key challenges ICANN?s faces in the future in the areas of security; governance; unique identifier systems; geopolitics; and financials. Even great plans come with challenges, which we want to anticipate and address as a prelude to implementation. We pulled together once before, galvanized our resources effectively and achieved a successful transition. We need to do it again to address ICANN?s future challenges. Are we ready? Do we, for example, collectively have the leadership, skills, resources, knowledge and commitment required to implement these plans successfully over the next five years? We need your help for this. Specifically, as you prepare for Kobe, we would like your high-level input on: 1. What the Board, ICANN org, and the Community should be doing now to prepare for the successful implementation of these plans? Please make three suggestions as concrete as possible, providing one each for the Board, ICANN org, and the Community. 1. While the success of these plans lies primarily within ICANN, we all know that ICANN does not operate in a vacuum, and alliances and partnerships are important to our success. How can we increase the likelihood that important allies and partners in the space are on the same page and working together to achieve common/agreed upon goals? Please provide one suggestion of something that could be done externally to improve trust and collaboration. We are looking forward to hearing your four suggestions during our face-to-face meetings in Kobe so that we could then work jointly towards a successful implementation of ICANN?s future plans, that you have been involved in formulating. In the meantime, we would be very grateful if you could send to Board Operations (board-ops-team at icann.org) the questions you would like the Board to address during our face-to-face meetings. Given the finite time available for these meetings, we would appreciate it very much if you could list your questions in order of priority. We would also appreciate getting your questions no later than Monday 18 February, 2019 or sooner. We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward to welcoming you in Japan! Best regards, Cherine Chalaby Chair, ICANN Board of Directors so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org _______________________________________________ So-ac-sg-cleaders mailing list So-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Board.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 150624 bytes Desc: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Board.docx URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Sun Feb 24 17:39:10 2019 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 10:39:10 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c1aded9-aaa2-432f-673a-bfd4a72fd06d@kathykleiman.com> Stephanie, Tx for the thought and care! Can we move the public interest up earlier, and make it broader? This is the NCSG meeting with the Board on the Tuesday in Kobe, right?? I think finding out more broadly about the Board's project on exploring or defining the public interest is important. What is happening?? All I get are hints.? This is something that we, NCSG, should be front and center in!?? What is it?? Who's leading it? What's the timeframe? What are the community input points, etc. T Then drilling down more to a second subtopic on the theme as you have laid out --*Security, Privacy and the Public Interest* I would move "Public Interest" up to #2 to make sure it is reached and covered. I think it is the topic for which the most new information may be generated and shared. Bruna, Elsa and I can fill NCSG on Sexual Harassment at the NCSG meeting, and it won't take long. There is a new Board committee, Sarah Deutsch is the chair, and there are numerous Board members on it. There will be a meeting on Monday morning for the group of people who have been encouraging (really pushing) the Board to move forward -- Bruna and Elsa were real leaders here. Not much more to report -- and I don't there will be much more on Tuesday in Kobe... But perhaps a statement from you to the Board that the NCSG supports forward movement in this area? Best, Kathy On 2/24/2019 10:26 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > just a gentle jog...we are a week late on this.? I am stuck on the > three Answers to our planning challenges...here is the draft so far, > comments welcome > > cheers Steph > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: FW: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion > & Questions to the Board > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:03:28 +0000 > From: Maryam Bakoshi > To: Stephanie Perrin > > > > -- > > Many thanks, > > ** > > *Maryam Bakoshi*?| SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > > *ICANN*?| Internet Corporation got Assigned Names and Numbers > > *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*:?+44 7846 471777 > > *From: *Maryam Bakoshi > *Date: *Monday, 11 February 2019 at 08:47 > *To: *"stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca" > > *Subject: *Fwd: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for > Discussion & Questions to the Board > > > Dear Stephanie, > > Please see below deadline for Board questions which is the 18th of > February. > > ? > > Many thanks, > > * > > * > > *Maryam Bakoshi*?| SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > > *ICANN*?| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*:?+44 7846 471777 > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Vinciane Koenigsfeld > > *Date:* 11 February 2019 at 08:13:02 GMT > *To:* "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org > " > > *Cc:* Board Ops Team > > *Subject:* *[So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for > Discussion & Questions to the Board* > > *Gentle reminder ? deadline for Questions to the Board ? Monday 18 > February* > > *From: *Vinciane Koenigsfeld > > *Date: *Friday 18 January 2019 at 18:27 > *To: *"so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org > " > > *Cc: *David Olive >, Board Ops Team > > > *Subject: *ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the > Board > > Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, > > *_Questions from your Groups to the Board - Please reply no later > than Monday 18 February 2019_* > > On behalf of the Board, I would like to wish each and every one of > you, a HAPPY NEW YEAR! > > In 2019, the Board and I are determined to work with you more > closely than ever to make it a productive and successful year for > ICANN?s future. > > We are very much looking forward to welcoming you and discussing > with you during ICANN64 which will take place in Kobe between 9-14 > March 2019. > > This time in particular, the Board would like to listen to your > suggestions in order to make ICANN?s big plans successful. > > _What does it mean_? > > In 2018, besides GDPR, the Community, the Board and ICANN org have > worked tirelessly on several key plans that are now?or soon will > be out for public comment: > > - the draft Strategic Plan 2021-2025 was published a little before > Christmas; > > - the first consultation paper on a 2-Year budgeting process was > also published before Christmas; > > - and the draft FY21-25 Operating Plan & Financial Projections > will be posted before this summer. > > In addition, based on community feedback and discussions at ICANN > 63, we will begin a consultation in Kobe on the status of ICANN?s > governance?s?model, including whether and?how it should evolve?to > continue to serve the global ICANN community. > > In the aggregate, these plans are comprehensive and address the > key challenges ICANN?s faces in the future in the areas of > security; governance; unique identifier systems; geopolitics; and > financials. > > Even great plans come with challenges, which we want to anticipate > and address as a prelude to implementation.? We pulled together > once before, galvanized our resources effectively and achieved a > successful transition. We need to do it again to address ICANN?s > future challenges. Are we ready? Do we, for example, collectively > have the leadership, skills, resources, knowledge and commitment > required to implement these plans successfully over the next five > years? We need your help for this.** > > Specifically, as you prepare for Kobe, we would like?your > high-level input on: > > 1. What the Board, ICANN org, and the Community should be doing > now?to prepare for the successful implementation of these > plans?? Please make _three suggestions_ as concrete as > possible, providing one each for the Board, ICANN org, and the > Community. > > 2. While the success of these plans lies primarily within ICANN, > we all know that?ICANN does not operate in a vacuum, > and?alliances and?partnerships?are important?to our success.? > How can we increase the likelihood that important allies and > partners in the space are on the same page and working > together to achieve common/agreed upon goals???Please provide > _one suggestion_?of something that could be done?externally?to > improve trust and collaboration. > > We are looking forward to hearing _your four suggestions_?during > our face-to-face meetings in Kobe so that we could then work > jointly towards a successful implementation of ICANN?s future > plans, that you have been involved in formulating. > > In the meantime, we would be very grateful if you could send to > Board Operations (board-ops-team at icann.org > ) ?the questions you would like > the Board to address during our face-to-face meetings.? Given the > finite time available for these meetings, we would appreciate it > very much if you could list your questions in order of priority. > ??We would also appreciate getting your questions no later than > *_Monday 18 February, 2019 or sooner_*. > > We thank you in?advance for your time on this matter and we look > forward to welcoming you in Japan! > > Best regards, > > Cherine Chalaby > > Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > > so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > So-ac-sg-cleaders mailing list > So-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Feb 24 17:55:47 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:55:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board In-Reply-To: <0c1aded9-aaa2-432f-673a-bfd4a72fd06d@kathykleiman.com> References: <0c1aded9-aaa2-432f-673a-bfd4a72fd06d@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks so much Kathy, here is a new version...and re the harassment issue, I was just wanting to say good job, and get Bruna or Elsa to introduce that topic. Quick and positive, not much need to discuss. Cheers SP On 2019-02-24 10:39, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Stephanie, Tx for the thought and care! Can we move the public interest up earlier, and make it broader? This is the NCSG meeting with the Board on the Tuesday in Kobe, right? I think finding out more broadly about the Board's project on exploring or defining the public interest is important. What is happening? All I get are hints. This is something that we, NCSG, should be front and center in! What is it? Who's leading it? What's the timeframe? What are the community input points, etc. T Then drilling down more to a second subtopic on the theme as you have laid out --Security, Privacy and the Public Interest I would move "Public Interest" up to #2 to make sure it is reached and covered. I think it is the topic for which the most new information may be generated and shared. Bruna, Elsa and I can fill NCSG on Sexual Harassment at the NCSG meeting, and it won't take long. There is a new Board committee, Sarah Deutsch is the chair, and there are numerous Board members on it. There will be a meeting on Monday morning for the group of people who have been encouraging (really pushing) the Board to move forward -- Bruna and Elsa were real leaders here. Not much more to report -- and I don't there will be much more on Tuesday in Kobe... But perhaps a statement from you to the Board that the NCSG supports forward movement in this area? Best, Kathy On 2/24/2019 10:26 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: just a gentle jog...we are a week late on this. I am stuck on the three Answers to our planning challenges...here is the draft so far, comments welcome cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: FW: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:03:28 +0000 From: Maryam Bakoshi To: Stephanie Perrin -- Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation got Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 From: Maryam Bakoshi Date: Monday, 11 February 2019 at 08:47 To: "stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca" Subject: Fwd: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board Dear Stephanie, Please see below deadline for Board questions which is the 18th of February. ? Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 Begin forwarded message: From: Vinciane Koenigsfeld > Date: 11 February 2019 at 08:13:02 GMT To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" > Cc: Board Ops Team > Subject: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board Gentle reminder ? deadline for Questions to the Board ? Monday 18 February From: Vinciane Koenigsfeld > Date: Friday 18 January 2019 at 18:27 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" > Cc: David Olive >, Board Ops Team > Subject: ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, Questions from your Groups to the Board - Please reply no later than Monday 18 February 2019 On behalf of the Board, I would like to wish each and every one of you, a HAPPY NEW YEAR! In 2019, the Board and I are determined to work with you more closely than ever to make it a productive and successful year for ICANN?s future. We are very much looking forward to welcoming you and discussing with you during ICANN64 which will take place in Kobe between 9-14 March 2019. This time in particular, the Board would like to listen to your suggestions in order to make ICANN?s big plans successful. What does it mean? In 2018, besides GDPR, the Community, the Board and ICANN org have worked tirelessly on several key plans that are now or soon will be out for public comment: - the draft Strategic Plan 2021-2025 was published a little before Christmas; - the first consultation paper on a 2-Year budgeting process was also published before Christmas; - and the draft FY21-25 Operating Plan & Financial Projections will be posted before this summer. In addition, based on community feedback and discussions at ICANN 63, we will begin a consultation in Kobe on the status of ICANN?s governance?s model, including whether and how it should evolve to continue to serve the global ICANN community. In the aggregate, these plans are comprehensive and address the key challenges ICANN?s faces in the future in the areas of security; governance; unique identifier systems; geopolitics; and financials. Even great plans come with challenges, which we want to anticipate and address as a prelude to implementation. We pulled together once before, galvanized our resources effectively and achieved a successful transition. We need to do it again to address ICANN?s future challenges. Are we ready? Do we, for example, collectively have the leadership, skills, resources, knowledge and commitment required to implement these plans successfully over the next five years? We need your help for this. Specifically, as you prepare for Kobe, we would like your high-level input on: 1. What the Board, ICANN org, and the Community should be doing now to prepare for the successful implementation of these plans? Please make three suggestions as concrete as possible, providing one each for the Board, ICANN org, and the Community. 1. While the success of these plans lies primarily within ICANN, we all know that ICANN does not operate in a vacuum, and alliances and partnerships are important to our success. How can we increase the likelihood that important allies and partners in the space are on the same page and working together to achieve common/agreed upon goals? Please provide one suggestion of something that could be done externally to improve trust and collaboration. We are looking forward to hearing your four suggestions during our face-to-face meetings in Kobe so that we could then work jointly towards a successful implementation of ICANN?s future plans, that you have been involved in formulating. In the meantime, we would be very grateful if you could send to Board Operations (board-ops-team at icann.org) the questions you would like the Board to address during our face-to-face meetings. Given the finite time available for these meetings, we would appreciate it very much if you could list your questions in order of priority. We would also appreciate getting your questions no later than Monday 18 February, 2019 or sooner. We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward to welcoming you in Japan! Best regards, Cherine Chalaby Chair, ICANN Board of Directors so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org _______________________________________________ So-ac-sg-cleaders mailing list So-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif] Virus-free. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC 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: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Boardv2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 164189 bytes Desc: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Boardv2.docx URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 18:26:09 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 11:26:09 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board In-Reply-To: References: <0c1aded9-aaa2-432f-673a-bfd4a72fd06d@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Thank you for drafting these, with no help and sorry if you felt alone in this, I will try and pay more attention. I am struggling with topic two and topic three and solution number 1. I think any question related to EPDP has to be addressed in a way that is within the Board's remit not the remit of GNSO. Questions about chair etc is related to GNSO. I think we can discuss the budget for EPDP more broadly and perhaps ask the CEO what he is gonna do when the technical team they have assembled will step in policy area. As to topic number 3, I don't think Board and CEO will have a good solution for that. The thing they should not be doing is not to get involved but help us. We have to admit that DNS is a limited Internet governance issue that not many want to get involved in and invest in our members who are interested to get involved. Solution number 1 about travel funding is also not very convincing and I don't think we should bring it up. I'd like us to ask the board a couple of questions regarding their emphasis on receiving community feedback on every aspect of their work and then it is not very clear what they do with these comments and feedback. Do they ask for feedback to later on justify their decision? If yes, how do they include everyone's feedback? If no, what is the point of asking for feedback? I also want to know why in the middle of EPDP deliberations board sent a letter to GNSO council asking what our plan B was? I believe and this is my personal opinion, a not very subtle nudge to EPDP volunteers and GNSO council to get their job done was not in the multistakeholder spirit and might be unprecedented. Also not a bad idea to discuss their plans for UAM. Was the technical group the only step? Are they envisioning taking other actions before phase 2 is finalized? It also seems like the governments are getting more and more traction and more important than other stakeholder groups. I get that impression from the CEO and Board reps speeches in various venues. And they are not making the speeches only to the government but they are making it in multistakeholder environment. I don't want this to come across as an accusation but it might be very much related to your good answer to question 2 of the board about coopeartion. Best Farzaneh On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 10:55 AM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Thanks so much Kathy, here is a new version...and re the harassment issue, > I was just wanting to say good job, and get Bruna or Elsa to introduce that > topic. Quick and positive, not much need to discuss. > > Cheers SP > On 2019-02-24 10:39, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Stephanie, > > Tx for the thought and care! Can we move the public interest up earlier, > and make it broader? This is the NCSG meeting with the Board on the Tuesday > in Kobe, right? I think finding out more broadly about the Board's project > on exploring or defining the public interest is important. What is > happening? All I get are hints. This is something that we, NCSG, should > be front and center in! What is it? Who's leading it? What's the > timeframe? What are the community input points, etc. T > > Then drilling down more to a second subtopic on the theme as you have laid > out --*Security, Privacy and the Public Interest* > > I would move "Public Interest" up to #2 to make sure it is reached and > covered. I think it is the topic for which the most new information may be > generated and shared. > > Bruna, Elsa and I can fill NCSG on Sexual Harassment at the NCSG meeting, > and it won't take long. There is a new Board committee, Sarah Deutsch is > the chair, and there are numerous Board members on it. There will be a > meeting on Monday morning for the group of people who have been encouraging > (really pushing) the Board to move forward -- Bruna and Elsa were real > leaders here. Not much more to report -- and I don't there will be much > more on Tuesday in Kobe... But perhaps a statement from you to the Board > that the NCSG supports forward movement in this area? > > Best, Kathy > > On 2/24/2019 10:26 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > just a gentle jog...we are a week late on this. I am stuck on the three > Answers to our planning challenges...here is the draft so far, comments > welcome > > cheers Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: FW: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & > Questions to the Board > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:03:28 +0000 > From: Maryam Bakoshi > To: Stephanie Perrin > > > > > > > -- > > Many thanks, > > > > *Maryam Bakoshi* | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > > *ICANN* | Internet Corporation got Assigned Names and Numbers > > *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*: +44 7846 471777 > > > > > > *From: *Maryam Bakoshi > > *Date: *Monday, 11 February 2019 at 08:47 > *To: *"stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca" > > > *Subject: *Fwd: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion > & Questions to the Board > > > > > Dear Stephanie, > > > > Please see below deadline for Board questions which is the 18th of > February. > > ? > > Many thanks, > > > > > > *Maryam Bakoshi* | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > > *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*: +44 7846 471777 > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Vinciane Koenigsfeld > *Date:* 11 February 2019 at 08:13:02 GMT > *To:* "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" > *Cc:* Board Ops Team > *Subject:* *[So-ac-sg-cleaders] ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & > Questions to the Board* > > *Gentle reminder ? deadline for Questions to the Board ? Monday 18 > February* > > > > *From: *Vinciane Koenigsfeld > *Date: *Friday 18 January 2019 at 18:27 > *To: *"so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" > *Cc: *David Olive , Board Ops Team < > board-ops-team at icann.org> > *Subject: *ICANN64 - Board topic for Discussion & Questions to the Board > > > > Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, > > > > *Questions from your Groups to the Board - Please reply no later than > Monday 18 February 2019* > > > > On behalf of the Board, I would like to wish each and every one of you, a > HAPPY NEW YEAR! > > > > In 2019, the Board and I are determined to work with you more closely than > ever to make it a productive and successful year for ICANN?s future. > > > > We are very much looking forward to welcoming you and discussing with you > during ICANN64 which will take place in Kobe between 9-14 March 2019. > > > > This time in particular, the Board would like to listen to your > suggestions in order to make ICANN?s big plans successful. > > > > *What does it mean*? > > > > In 2018, besides GDPR, the Community, the Board and ICANN org have worked > tirelessly on several key plans that are now or soon will be out for public > comment: > > > > - the draft Strategic Plan 2021-2025 was published a little before > Christmas; > > - the first consultation paper on a 2-Year budgeting process was also > published before Christmas; > > - and the draft FY21-25 Operating Plan & Financial Projections will be > posted before this summer. > > > > In addition, based on community feedback and discussions at ICANN 63, we > will begin a consultation in Kobe on the status of ICANN?s > governance?s model, including whether and how it should evolve to continue > to serve the global ICANN community. > > > > In the aggregate, these plans are comprehensive and address the key > challenges ICANN?s faces in the future in the areas of security; > governance; unique identifier systems; geopolitics; and financials. > > > > Even great plans come with challenges, which we want to anticipate and > address as a prelude to implementation. We pulled together once before, > galvanized our resources effectively and achieved a successful transition. > We need to do it again to address ICANN?s future challenges. Are we ready? > Do we, for example, collectively have the leadership, skills, resources, > knowledge and commitment required to implement these plans successfully > over the next five years? We need your help for this. > > > > Specifically, as you prepare for Kobe, we would like your high-level input > on: > > > > 1. What the Board, ICANN org, and the Community should be doing now to > prepare for the successful implementation of these plans? Please make *three > suggestions* as concrete as possible, providing one each for the > Board, ICANN org, and the Community. > > > > 1. While the success of these plans lies primarily within ICANN, we > all know that ICANN does not operate in a vacuum, and alliances > and partnerships are important to our success. How can we increase the > likelihood that important allies and partners in the space are on the same > page and working together to achieve common/agreed upon goals? Please > provide *one suggestion* of something that could be done externally to > improve trust and collaboration. > > > > We are looking forward to hearing *your four suggestions* during our > face-to-face meetings in Kobe so that we could then work jointly towards a > successful implementation of ICANN?s future plans, that you have been > involved in formulating. > > > > In the meantime, we would be very grateful if you could send to Board > Operations (board-ops-team at icann.org) the questions you would like the > Board to address during our face-to-face meetings. Given the finite time > available for these meetings, we would appreciate it very much if you could > list your questions in order of priority. We would also appreciate > getting your questions no later than *Monday 18 February, 2019 or sooner*. > > > > We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward > to welcoming you in Japan! > > > > Best regards, > > > > Cherine Chalaby > > Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > > > > > > > > so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > So-ac-sg-cleaders mailing list > So-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#m_6860862337002560575_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Feb 24 19:57:52 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 17:57:52 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe Message-ID: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all three. cheers folks and thanks for the interest! Steph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Boardv2 kkedsp.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34816 bytes Desc: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Boardv2 kkedsp.doc URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 00:51:29 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:51:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the draft. As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in EPDP section. I think we need only to ask the board about not bypassing the process (agree that their letter was ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced by other groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe that would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is suggested (I am fine with the question #1 about the resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is in a certain way a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint that board should get involved in any kind of facilitation that question #2 or #3 might imply. I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its intent. I don't think people get travel arrangement in last minute for fun but for basic reason: ICANN CT only book when visa are ready and that process takes time. things might change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I would oppose it on its current form. At the end most of work is done between meetings and conference calls. I would suggest instead that board improves its process in term of community consultation and exploring different approaches. the 1 hour session at ICANN meeting is too little. are the letters the right the medium for any kind of interaction? do we really want that board start kick off some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? Best, Rafik Le lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:58, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a > few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the > matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I > have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better > idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary > spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible > members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the > controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we > need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all > three. > > cheers folks and thanks for the interest! > > 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 tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 03:35:09 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:35:09 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I share Rafik?s comment about travel. I wish there is some explanation as to where this is coming from and what?s the reason for this question? Cheers. Tanya On Sun 24. Feb 2019 at 23:51, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > Thanks for the draft. > As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in EPDP section. I > think we need only to ask the board about not bypassing the process (agree > that their letter was ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced > by other groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe that > would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is suggested (I am fine > with the question #1 about the resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is > in a certain way a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona > about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint that board > should get involved in any kind of facilitation that question #2 or #3 > might imply. > > I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its intent. I don't > think people get travel arrangement in last minute for fun but for basic > reason: ICANN CT only book when visa are ready and that process takes time. > things might change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I > really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I would oppose it > on its current form. At the end most of work is done between meetings and > conference calls. > > I would suggest instead that board improves its process in term of > community consultation and exploring different approaches. the 1 hour > session at ICANN meeting is too little. are the letters the right the > medium for any kind of interaction? do we really want that board start kick > off some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:58, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > >> Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a >> few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the >> matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I >> have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better >> idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary >> spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible >> members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the >> controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we >> need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all >> three. >> >> cheers folks and thanks for the interest! >> >> Steph >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 25 03:56:48 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 01:56:48 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I'm sorry not to have commented sooner. I know it is not helpful when people chime in at the last minute. I am not sure about the comments on travel either. As a percentage of the organization's overall spend, community travel is about 2% of the budget - it is not particularly high. I do not know how much is spent on staff travel because these figures are not published. And while I agree there is waste in the community travel spend, I happen to think there is substantially more waste on internal staff travel, and that is something we have very little insight into. Look at how often Theresa Swinehart is traveling using public interest money, often at the last minute, at a minimum in business class, and staying in hotels that cost more per night than ICANN spends putting us up for a week, say, in Barcelona. We have already seen efforts, in Barcelona for instance, to place community members into subpar hotels in order to save a few dollars. I am concerned that there are efforts only to cut costs by targeting the community, and not to cut staff or board expenditure. I appreciate that your question actually is looking more broadly than at the community, but I think it is unlikely to be read that way, and could be used as ammunition by the CEO to further degrade the community travel experience. What I am curious about, however, is hearing more about how ICANN intends to achieve operational efficiencies in order to contribute several million dollars a year to the Reserve Fund. I haven't seen a plan for achieving this; has anyone else? Thanks again for drafting this response, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, February 25, 2019 2:35 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > I share Rafik?s comment about travel. I wish there is some explanation as to where this is coming from and what?s the reason for this question? > Cheers. > Tanya > > On Sun 24. Feb 2019 at 23:51, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> Thanks for the draft. >> As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in EPDP section. I think we need only to ask the board about not bypassing the process (agree that their letter was ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced by other groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe that would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is suggested (I am fine with the question #1 about the resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is in a certain way a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint that board should get involved in any kind of facilitation that question #2 or #3 might imply. >> I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its intent. I don't think people get travel arrangement in last minute for fun but for basic reason: ICANN CT only book when visa are ready and that process takes time. things might change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I would oppose it on its current form. At the end most of work is done between meetings and conference calls. >> >> I would suggest instead that board improves its process in term of community consultation and exploring different approaches. the 1 hour session at ICANN meeting is too little. are the letters the right the medium for any kind of interaction? do we really want that board start kick off some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:58, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >> >>> Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all three. >>> >>> cheers folks and thanks for the interest! >>> >>> Steph >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.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 Mon Feb 25 04:07:41 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:07:41 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5c593f70-6b3b-e7a4-6e61-b08598561126@mail.utoronto.ca> The whole point in focusing on travel was to do the sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. The target is staff.... there appears to be no transparency and no accountability On 2019-02-24 20:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: I'm sorry not to have commented sooner. I know it is not helpful when people chime in at the last minute. I am not sure about the comments on travel either. As a percentage of the organization's overall spend, community travel is about 2% of the budget - it is not particularly high. I do not know how much is spent on staff travel because these figures are not published. And while I agree there is waste in the community travel spend, I happen to think there is substantially more waste on internal staff travel, and that is something we have very little insight into. Look at how often Theresa Swinehart is traveling using public interest money, often at the last minute, at a minimum in business class, and staying in hotels that cost more per night than ICANN spends putting us up for a week, say, in Barcelona. We have already seen efforts, in Barcelona for instance, to place community members into subpar hotels in order to save a few dollars. I am concerned that there are efforts only to cut costs by targeting the community, and not to cut staff or board expenditure. I appreciate that your question actually is looking more broadly than at the community, but I think it is unlikely to be read that way, and could be used as ammunition by the CEO to further degrade the community travel experience. What I am curious about, however, is hearing more about how ICANN intends to achieve operational efficiencies in order to contribute several million dollars a year to the Reserve Fund. I haven't seen a plan for achieving this; has anyone else? Thanks again for drafting this response, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, February 25, 2019 2:35 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: I share Rafik?s comment about travel. I wish there is some explanation as to where this is coming from and what?s the reason for this question? Cheers. Tanya On Sun 24. Feb 2019 at 23:51, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the draft. As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in EPDP section. I think we need only to ask the board about not bypassing the process (agree that their letter was ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced by other groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe that would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is suggested (I am fine with the question #1 about the resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is in a certain way a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint that board should get involved in any kind of facilitation that question #2 or #3 might imply. I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its intent. I don't think people get travel arrangement in last minute for fun but for basic reason: ICANN CT only book when visa are ready and that process takes time. things might change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I would oppose it on its current form. At the end most of work is done between meetings and conference calls. I would suggest instead that board improves its process in term of community consultation and exploring different approaches. the 1 hour session at ICANN meeting is too little. are the letters the right the medium for any kind of interaction? do we really want that board start kick off some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? Best, Rafik Le lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:58, Stephanie Perrin > a ?crit : Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all three. cheers folks and thanks for the interest! Steph _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Feb 25 04:30:22 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:30:22 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: <5c593f70-6b3b-e7a4-6e61-b08598561126@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> <5c593f70-6b3b-e7a4-6e61-b08598561126@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Ok folks. We have to come up with 3 concrete suggestions about how the Board, the Community, and the org can respond to the challenges we are facing over the next five years. Then we also need to answer the question about how to engage the outside world, and seek allies. The other topics at the beginning of the memo, are our comments/questions to them. I have annotated the draft attached, with what I am hearing. Since a lot of stuff is being yanked, can we have a few concrete suggestions as to what to replace them with? I have also dropped this draft into a google document, for your convenience, here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# I have included the new version with the offending material dropped. It is frankly pretty thin. Please help with your proposals. stephanie On 2019-02-24 21:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: The whole point in focusing on travel was to do the sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. The target is staff.... there appears to be no transparency and no accountability On 2019-02-24 20:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: I'm sorry not to have commented sooner. I know it is not helpful when people chime in at the last minute. I am not sure about the comments on travel either. As a percentage of the organization's overall spend, community travel is about 2% of the budget - it is not particularly high. I do not know how much is spent on staff travel because these figures are not published. And while I agree there is waste in the community travel spend, I happen to think there is substantially more waste on internal staff travel, and that is something we have very little insight into. Look at how often Theresa Swinehart is traveling using public interest money, often at the last minute, at a minimum in business class, and staying in hotels that cost more per night than ICANN spends putting us up for a week, say, in Barcelona. We have already seen efforts, in Barcelona for instance, to place community members into subpar hotels in order to save a few dollars. I am concerned that there are efforts only to cut costs by targeting the community, and not to cut staff or board expenditure. I appreciate that your question actually is looking more broadly than at the community, but I think it is unlikely to be read that way, and could be used as ammunition by the CEO to further degrade the community travel experience. What I am curious about, however, is hearing more about how ICANN intends to achieve operational efficiencies in order to contribute several million dollars a year to the Reserve Fund. I haven't seen a plan for achieving this; has anyone else? Thanks again for drafting this response, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, February 25, 2019 2:35 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: I share Rafik?s comment about travel. I wish there is some explanation as to where this is coming from and what?s the reason for this question? Cheers. Tanya On Sun 24. Feb 2019 at 23:51, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the draft. As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in EPDP section. I think we need only to ask the board about not bypassing the process (agree that their letter was ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced by other groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe that would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is suggested (I am fine with the question #1 about the resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is in a certain way a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint that board should get involved in any kind of facilitation that question #2 or #3 might imply. I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its intent. I don't think people get travel arrangement in last minute for fun but for basic reason: ICANN CT only book when visa are ready and that process takes time. things might change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I would oppose it on its current form. At the end most of work is done between meetings and conference calls. I would suggest instead that board improves its process in term of community consultation and exploring different approaches. the 1 hour session at ICANN meeting is too little. are the letters the right the medium for any kind of interaction? do we really want that board start kick off some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? Best, Rafik Le lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:58, Stephanie Perrin > a ?crit : Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all three. cheers folks and thanks for the interest! Steph _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Boardv2 kkedsp.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34816 bytes Desc: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Boardv2 kkedsp.doc URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Feb 25 19:00:51 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:00:51 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> <5c593f70-6b3b-e7a4-6e61-b08598561126@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5e240068-3f95-542a-2789-241bbcc6f51f@mail.utoronto.ca> The silence is deafening. I have a new version. Getting flippant, you better read it....https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# cheers Steph On 2019-02-24 21:30, Stephanie Perrin wrote: Ok folks. We have to come up with 3 concrete suggestions about how the Board, the Community, and the org can respond to the challenges we are facing over the next five years. Then we also need to answer the question about how to engage the outside world, and seek allies. The other topics at the beginning of the memo, are our comments/questions to them. I have annotated the draft attached, with what I am hearing. Since a lot of stuff is being yanked, can we have a few concrete suggestions as to what to replace them with? I have also dropped this draft into a google document, for your convenience, here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# I have included the new version with the offending material dropped. It is frankly pretty thin. Please help with your proposals. stephanie On 2019-02-24 21:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: The whole point in focusing on travel was to do the sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. The target is staff.... there appears to be no transparency and no accountability On 2019-02-24 20:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: I'm sorry not to have commented sooner. I know it is not helpful when people chime in at the last minute. I am not sure about the comments on travel either. As a percentage of the organization's overall spend, community travel is about 2% of the budget - it is not particularly high. I do not know how much is spent on staff travel because these figures are not published. And while I agree there is waste in the community travel spend, I happen to think there is substantially more waste on internal staff travel, and that is something we have very little insight into. Look at how often Theresa Swinehart is traveling using public interest money, often at the last minute, at a minimum in business class, and staying in hotels that cost more per night than ICANN spends putting us up for a week, say, in Barcelona. We have already seen efforts, in Barcelona for instance, to place community members into subpar hotels in order to save a few dollars. I am concerned that there are efforts only to cut costs by targeting the community, and not to cut staff or board expenditure. I appreciate that your question actually is looking more broadly than at the community, but I think it is unlikely to be read that way, and could be used as ammunition by the CEO to further degrade the community travel experience. What I am curious about, however, is hearing more about how ICANN intends to achieve operational efficiencies in order to contribute several million dollars a year to the Reserve Fund. I haven't seen a plan for achieving this; has anyone else? Thanks again for drafting this response, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, February 25, 2019 2:35 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: I share Rafik?s comment about travel. I wish there is some explanation as to where this is coming from and what?s the reason for this question? Cheers. Tanya On Sun 24. Feb 2019 at 23:51, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the draft. As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in EPDP section. I think we need only to ask the board about not bypassing the process (agree that their letter was ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced by other groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe that would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is suggested (I am fine with the question #1 about the resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is in a certain way a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint that board should get involved in any kind of facilitation that question #2 or #3 might imply. I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its intent. I don't think people get travel arrangement in last minute for fun but for basic reason: ICANN CT only book when visa are ready and that process takes time. things might change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I would oppose it on its current form. At the end most of work is done between meetings and conference calls. I would suggest instead that board improves its process in term of community consultation and exploring different approaches. the 1 hour session at ICANN meeting is too little. are the letters the right the medium for any kind of interaction? do we really want that board start kick off some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? Best, Rafik Le lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:58, Stephanie Perrin > a ?crit : Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all three. cheers folks and thanks for the interest! Steph _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Feb 25 19:03:56 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:03:56 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: <5e240068-3f95-542a-2789-241bbcc6f51f@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> <5c593f70-6b3b-e7a4-6e61-b08598561126@mail.utoronto.ca> <5e240068-3f95-542a-2789-241bbcc6f51f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Trying again https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit?usp=sharing cheers Steph On 2019-02-25 12:00, Stephanie Perrin wrote: The silence is deafening. I have a new version. Getting flippant, you better read it....https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# cheers Steph On 2019-02-24 21:30, Stephanie Perrin wrote: Ok folks. We have to come up with 3 concrete suggestions about how the Board, the Community, and the org can respond to the challenges we are facing over the next five years. Then we also need to answer the question about how to engage the outside world, and seek allies. The other topics at the beginning of the memo, are our comments/questions to them. I have annotated the draft attached, with what I am hearing. Since a lot of stuff is being yanked, can we have a few concrete suggestions as to what to replace them with? I have also dropped this draft into a google document, for your convenience, here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# I have included the new version with the offending material dropped. It is frankly pretty thin. Please help with your proposals. stephanie On 2019-02-24 21:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: The whole point in focusing on travel was to do the sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. The target is staff.... there appears to be no transparency and no accountability On 2019-02-24 20:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: I'm sorry not to have commented sooner. I know it is not helpful when people chime in at the last minute. I am not sure about the comments on travel either. As a percentage of the organization's overall spend, community travel is about 2% of the budget - it is not particularly high. I do not know how much is spent on staff travel because these figures are not published. And while I agree there is waste in the community travel spend, I happen to think there is substantially more waste on internal staff travel, and that is something we have very little insight into. Look at how often Theresa Swinehart is traveling using public interest money, often at the last minute, at a minimum in business class, and staying in hotels that cost more per night than ICANN spends putting us up for a week, say, in Barcelona. We have already seen efforts, in Barcelona for instance, to place community members into subpar hotels in order to save a few dollars. I am concerned that there are efforts only to cut costs by targeting the community, and not to cut staff or board expenditure. I appreciate that your question actually is looking more broadly than at the community, but I think it is unlikely to be read that way, and could be used as ammunition by the CEO to further degrade the community travel experience. What I am curious about, however, is hearing more about how ICANN intends to achieve operational efficiencies in order to contribute several million dollars a year to the Reserve Fund. I haven't seen a plan for achieving this; has anyone else? Thanks again for drafting this response, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, February 25, 2019 2:35 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: I share Rafik?s comment about travel. I wish there is some explanation as to where this is coming from and what?s the reason for this question? Cheers. Tanya On Sun 24. Feb 2019 at 23:51, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the draft. As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in EPDP section. I think we need only to ask the board about not bypassing the process (agree that their letter was ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced by other groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe that would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is suggested (I am fine with the question #1 about the resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is in a certain way a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint that board should get involved in any kind of facilitation that question #2 or #3 might imply. I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its intent. I don't think people get travel arrangement in last minute for fun but for basic reason: ICANN CT only book when visa are ready and that process takes time. things might change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I would oppose it on its current form. At the end most of work is done between meetings and conference calls. I would suggest instead that board improves its process in term of community consultation and exploring different approaches. the 1 hour session at ICANN meeting is too little. are the letters the right the medium for any kind of interaction? do we really want that board start kick off some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? Best, Rafik Le lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:58, Stephanie Perrin > a ?crit : Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all three. cheers folks and thanks for the interest! Steph _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.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 _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 06:36:26 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:36:26 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment - Report on CSC Effectiveness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, please review the draft comment. Best Regards, Rafik Le sam. 23 f?vr. 2019 ? 14:27, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > hi all, > > please find this draft comment for PC review. > it is straightforward one. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix > Date: sam. 23 f?vr. 2019 ? 13:03 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft comment - Report on CSC Effectiveness > To: > > > Dear all, > > Please have a look and make comments and suggestions on this draft. > Submission deadline is Feb 25th and it has to pass through the PC by then > as well! > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRbrBd0uBrn41IXFwo03FdNLjJHqzIPb3KVYqU7nvsg/edit > > Thank you for your time, > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 26 15:22:37 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:22:37 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> <5c593f70-6b3b-e7a4-6e61-b08598561126@mail.utoronto.ca> <5e240068-3f95-542a-2789-241bbcc6f51f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <4kRQIH5VtDKQvghe1bn1mtmxWgmJicq32NOXvHrqpbP1fLwotw645S_J49kAhHgAqSAbCz6KGQ3agE0Q5AnRX2tzLJU30A7gFpaC6m-7KC8=@ferdeline.com> Excellent work, Stephanie. Great questions and analysis. Ayden P.S. You are hilarious. ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, February 25, 2019 6:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Trying again https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit?usp=sharing > > cheers Steph > > On 2019-02-25 12:00, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> The silence is deafening. I have a new version. Getting flippant, you better read it....https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# >> >> cheers Steph >> >> On 2019-02-24 21:30, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> Ok folks. We have to come up with 3 concrete suggestions about how the Board, the Community, and the org can respond to the challenges we are facing over the next five years. Then we also need to answer the question about how to engage the outside world, and seek allies. The other topics at the beginning of the memo, are our comments/questions to them. I have annotated the draft attached, with what I am hearing. Since a lot of stuff is being yanked, can we have a few concrete suggestions as to what to replace them with? I have also dropped this draft into a google document, for your convenience, here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# >>> >>> I have included the new version with the offending material dropped. It is frankly pretty thin. Please help with your proposals. >>> >>> stephanie >>> >>> On 2019-02-24 21:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>>> The whole point in focusing on travel was to do the sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. The target is staff.... there appears to be no transparency and no accountability >>>> >>>> On 2019-02-24 20:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm sorry not to have commented sooner. I know it is not helpful when people chime in at the last minute. I am not sure about the comments on travel either. As a percentage of the organization's overall spend, community travel is about 2% of the budget - it is not particularly high. I do not know how much is spent on staff travel because these figures are not published. And while I agree there is waste in the community travel spend, I happen to think there is substantially more waste on internal staff travel, and that is something we have very little insight into. Look at how often Theresa Swinehart is traveling using public interest money, often at the last minute, at a minimum in business class, and staying in hotels that cost more per night than ICANN spends putting us up for a week, say, in Barcelona. We have already seen efforts, in Barcelona for instance, to place community members into subpar hotels in order to save a few dollars. I am concerned that there are efforts only to cut costs by targeting the community, and not to cut staff or board expenditure. I appreciate that your question actually is looking more broadly than at the community, but I think it is unlikely to be read that way, and could be used as ammunition by the CEO to further degrade the community travel experience. What I am curious about, however, is hearing more about how ICANN intends to achieve operational efficiencies in order to contribute several million dollars a year to the Reserve Fund. I haven't seen a plan for achieving this; has anyone else? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again for drafting this response, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Monday, February 25, 2019 2:35 AM, Tatiana Tropina [](mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I share Rafik?s comment about travel. I wish there is some explanation as to where this is coming from and what?s the reason for this question? >>>>>> Cheers. >>>>>> Tanya >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun 24. Feb 2019 at 23:51, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the draft. >>>>>>> As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in EPDP section. I think we need only to ask the board about not bypassing the process (agree that their letter was ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced by other groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe that would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is suggested (I am fine with the question #1 about the resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is in a certain way a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint that board should get involved in any kind of facilitation that question #2 or #3 might imply. >>>>>>> I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its intent. I don't think people get travel arrangement in last minute for fun but for basic reason: ICANN CT only book when visa are ready and that process takes time. things might change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I would oppose it on its current form. At the end most of work is done between meetings and conference calls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would suggest instead that board improves its process in term of community consultation and exploring different approaches. the 1 hour session at ICANN meeting is too little. are the letters the right the medium for any kind of interaction? do we really want that board start kick off some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ? 02:58, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. I have added a few things to Kathy's version, and changed the wording slightly on the matter of the Chair of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody comes up with a better idea, I think it is still a good idea. Travel is a big, discretionary spend. Leadership in the community has no control over irresponsible members who make last minute travel requests, and we don;t really see the controls in the staff budgets. Perfectly open to better ideas, but we need an idea for the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all three. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cheers folks and thanks for the interest! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing 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 at digitaldiscretion.ca Tue Feb 26 17:33:43 2019 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:33:43 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for the Board discussion in Kobe In-Reply-To: <4kRQIH5VtDKQvghe1bn1mtmxWgmJicq32NOXvHrqpbP1fLwotw645S_J49kAhHgAqSAbCz6KGQ3agE0Q5AnRX2tzLJU30A7gFpaC6m-7KC8=@ferdeline.com> References: <54227396-ebe5-2759-c918-2fcf798905c3@mail.utoronto.ca> <5c593f70-6b3b-e7a4-6e61-b08598561126@mail.utoronto.ca> <5e240068-3f95-542a-2789-241bbcc6f51f@mail.utoronto.ca> <4kRQIH5VtDKQvghe1bn1mtmxWgmJicq32NOXvHrqpbP1fLwotw645S_J49kAhHgAqSAbCz6KGQ3agE0Q5AnRX2tzLJU30A7gFpaC6m-7KC8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <314b22d2-fd75-8f36-1692-c8002710b819@digitaldiscretion.ca> Thanks for your encouragement Ayden!?? This is one of those thankless tasks.... cheers SP On 2019-02-26 08:22, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Excellent work, Stephanie. Great questions and analysis. > > Ayden > > P.S. You are hilarious. > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Monday, February 25, 2019 6:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: > >> Trying again >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit?usp=sharing >> >> cheers Steph >> >> On 2019-02-25 12:00, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> The silence is deafening.? I have a new version.? Getting flippant, >>> you better read >>> it....https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> >>> On 2019-02-24 21:30, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok folks.? We have to come up with 3 concrete suggestions about how >>>> the Board, the Community, and the org can respond to the challenges >>>> we are facing over the next five years. Then we also need to answer >>>> the question about how to engage the outside world, and seek >>>> allies.? The other topics at the beginning of the memo, are our >>>> comments/questions to them. I have annotated the draft attached, >>>> with what I am hearing.? Since a lot of stuff is being yanked, can >>>> we have a few concrete suggestions as to what to replace them >>>> with?? I have also dropped this draft into a google document, for >>>> your convenience, here >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dJv7dhjbJsnc1Nm4gG7iCGeKXaRdq320bhRDuggc9Ks/edit# >>>> >>>> I have included the new version with the offending material >>>> dropped.? It is frankly pretty thin.? Please help with your proposals. >>>> >>>> stephanie >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2019-02-24 21:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The whole point in focusing on travel was to do the sauce for the >>>>> goose, sauce for the gander.? The target is staff.... there >>>>> appears to be no transparency and no accountability >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-02-24 20:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> I'm sorry not to have commented sooner. I know it is not helpful >>>>>> when people chime in at the last minute. I am not sure about the >>>>>> comments on travel either. As a percentage of the organization's >>>>>> overall spend, community travel is about 2% of the budget - it is >>>>>> not particularly high. I do not know how much is spent on staff >>>>>> travel because these figures are not published. And while I agree >>>>>> there is waste in the community travel spend, I happen to think >>>>>> there is substantially more waste on internal staff travel, and >>>>>> that is something we have very little insight into. Look at how >>>>>> often Theresa Swinehart is traveling using public interest money, >>>>>> often at the last minute, at a minimum in business class, and >>>>>> staying in hotels that cost more per night than ICANN spends >>>>>> putting us up for a week, say, in Barcelona. We have already seen >>>>>> efforts, in Barcelona for instance, to place community members >>>>>> into subpar hotels in order to save a few dollars. I am concerned >>>>>> that there are efforts only to cut costs by targeting the >>>>>> community, and not to cut staff or board expenditure. I >>>>>> appreciate that your question actually is looking more broadly >>>>>> than at the community, but I think it is unlikely to be read that >>>>>> way, and could be used as ammunition by the CEO to further >>>>>> degrade the community travel experience. What I am curious about, >>>>>> however, is hearing more about how ICANN intends to achieve >>>>>> operational efficiencies in order to contribute several million >>>>>> dollars a year to the Reserve Fund. I haven't seen a plan for >>>>>> achieving this; has anyone else? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again for drafting this response, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Monday, February 25, 2019 2:35 AM, Tatiana Tropina >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I share Rafik?s comment about travel. I wish there is some >>>>>>> explanation as to where this is coming from and what?s the >>>>>>> reason for this question? >>>>>>> Cheers. >>>>>>> Tanya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun 24. Feb 2019 at 23:51, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the draft. >>>>>>> As I read others comments, I don't see so much change in >>>>>>> EPDP section. I think we need only to ask the board about >>>>>>> not bypassing the process (agree that their letter was >>>>>>> ill-thought in bad timing) and to not be influenced by other >>>>>>> groups who might try to have 2 bites at the apple. I believe >>>>>>> that would be more useful to ask and discuss than what is >>>>>>> suggested (I am fine with the question #1 about the >>>>>>> resourcing and adequate budgeting). EPDP is in a certain way >>>>>>> a good respond to what board is talking since Barcelona >>>>>>> about PDP effectiveness. I don't want that we give any hint >>>>>>> that board should get involved in any kind of facilitation >>>>>>> that question #2 or #3 might imply. >>>>>>> I am really puzzled about the question on travel and its >>>>>>> intent. I don't think people get travel arrangement in last >>>>>>> minute for fun but for basic reason: ICANN CT only book when >>>>>>> visa are ready and that process takes time. things might >>>>>>> change with the new timeline and earlier support from CT. I >>>>>>> really believe we are sending the wrong message here and I >>>>>>> would oppose it on its current form. At the end most of work >>>>>>> is done between meetings and conference calls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would suggest instead that board improves its process in >>>>>>> term of community consultation and exploring different >>>>>>> approaches. the 1 hour session at ICANN meeting is too >>>>>>> little. are the letters the right the medium for any kind of >>>>>>> interaction? do we really want that board start kick off >>>>>>> some initiative and so adding more burden on the community? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le?lun. 25 f?vr. 2019 ??02:58, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>> >>>>>> > a ?crit?: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks to Farzi and Kathy for their comments/edits. >>>>>>> I have added a few things to Kathy's version, and >>>>>>> changed the wording slightly on the matter of the Chair >>>>>>> of the EPDP to acknowledge Farzi's point about GNSO. I >>>>>>> have not taken the travel thing out...Until somebody >>>>>>> comes up with a better idea, I think it is still a good >>>>>>> idea.? Travel is a big, discretionary spend. Leadership >>>>>>> in the community has no control over irresponsible >>>>>>> members who make last minute travel requests, and we >>>>>>> don;t really see the controls in the staff budgets.?? >>>>>>> Perfectly open to better ideas, but we need an idea for >>>>>>> the three parts of the comminity....this one hits all three. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers folks and thanks for the interest! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.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 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.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 Feb 27 01:05:01 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:05:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Meeting in Kobe Message-ID: Hi all, We are getting close to Kobe meeting and it is good time to be ready. Our NCSG Policy Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday 11th March 13:30-15:00. As draft agenda: 1- Introduction 2- GNSO Council meeting agenda 3- Policy Update: - EPDP next steps - Other PDP Working Groups 4- AOB. Nothing original here and we have only 90minute. We can adjust it in particular regarding council meeting if there is no expected motion. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Feb 27 15:30:29 2019 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:30:29 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Meeting in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik and All, This meeting conflicts with a session of the Rights Protections Mechanisms WG, so I will not be able to attend. Fortunately, we have an array of people working on these issues now -- which is a very good thing! Best, Kathy On 2/26/2019 6:05 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > We are getting close to Kobe meeting and it is good time to be ready. > Our NCSG Policy Committee meeting is scheduled? for Monday 11th March > 13:30-15:00. > As draft agenda: > 1- Introduction > 2- GNSO Council meeting agenda > 3- Policy Update: > - EPDP next steps > - Other PDP Working Groups > 4- AOB. > > Nothing original here and we have only 90minute. We can adjust it in > particular regarding council meeting if there is no expected motion. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 16:17:37 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:17:37 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Meeting in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since I am CoChair in the sub group that is going to be helding the RPMs meetings, I have to be there too , so I will have to skip it, of course I am always available for any RPM related question that may arise in the meeting. Best, Martin On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 10:31 Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Rafik and All, > > This meeting conflicts with a session of the Rights Protections Mechanisms > WG, so I will not be able to attend. Fortunately, we have an array of > people working on these issues now -- which is a very good thing! > > Best, Kathy > On 2/26/2019 6:05 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > We are getting close to Kobe meeting and it is good time to be ready. > Our NCSG Policy Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday 11th March > 13:30-15:00. > As draft agenda: > 1- Introduction > 2- GNSO Council meeting agenda > 3- Policy Update: > - EPDP next steps > - Other PDP Working Groups > 4- AOB. > > Nothing original here and we have only 90minute. We can adjust it in > particular regarding council meeting if there is no expected motion. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 27 17:46:55 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:46:55 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] last chance: proposed questions for the board Message-ID: Ok gang, I have attempted to resolve all comments. Here is the draft I proposed to sent today. I am crestfallen about having to remove the discussion about Public Interest. Let me know if you want more changes.... cheers Steph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Board.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 149520 bytes Desc: NCSG Topics for Discussion with the Board.docx URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 20:38:40 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:38:40 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Meeting in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Would it be worthwhile to possibly add discussions with board and how their priorirties in the upcoming years could affect NCSG? I know it?s not of high urgency compared to EPDP Phase 2 discussions, but I thought it might be good to add under AOB if you all think it?s worth while. Best, Elsa ? On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:05 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > We are getting close to Kobe meeting and it is good time to be ready. > Our NCSG Policy Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday 11th March > 13:30-15:00. > As draft agenda: > 1- Introduction > 2- GNSO Council meeting agenda > 3- Policy Update: > - EPDP next steps > - Other PDP Working Groups > 4- AOB. > > Nothing original here and we have only 90minute. We can adjust it in > particular regarding council meeting if there is no expected motion. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 27 21:21:25 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:21:25 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Meeting in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38800038-d441-eb60-55b2-aedb51281a28@mail.utoronto.ca> we will be hearing more from the Board/CEO about their 5 year plan in Kobe....they are dribbling it out, it seems. So it would be good to discuss our ongoing reactions as we hear things, in my view. We have free time in the NCSG meeting, can do a chat on what we have heard so far....... cheers SP On 2019-02-27 13:38, Elsa S wrote: Hi Rafik, Would it be worthwhile to possibly add discussions with board and how their priorirties in the upcoming years could affect NCSG? I know it?s not of high urgency compared to EPDP Phase 2 discussions, but I thought it might be good to add under AOB if you all think it?s worth while. Best, Elsa ? On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:05 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi all, We are getting close to Kobe meeting and it is good time to be ready. Our NCSG Policy Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday 11th March 13:30-15:00. As draft agenda: 1- Introduction 2- GNSO Council meeting agenda 3- Policy Update: - EPDP next steps - Other PDP Working Groups 4- AOB. Nothing original here and we have only 90minute. We can adjust it in particular regarding council meeting if there is no expected motion. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 01:35:28 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:35:28 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Meeting in Kobe In-Reply-To: <38800038-d441-eb60-55b2-aedb51281a28@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <38800038-d441-eb60-55b2-aedb51281a28@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, I think as Stephanie suggested the board discussions on strategic plan, governance model etc are more appropriate for the NCSG session during the constituency day. It is better to discuss of what we hear than trying to speculate and guessing. There are those sessions: ICANN strategical planning in Monday https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961911 and ICANN Board Session on Governance in Thursday https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961931 in addition to meeting with board on Tuesday. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 28 f?vr. 2019 ? 04:21, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > we will be hearing more from the Board/CEO about their 5 year plan in > Kobe....they are dribbling it out, it seems. So it would be good to discuss > our ongoing reactions as we hear things, in my view. We have free time in > the NCSG meeting, can do a chat on what we have heard so far....... > > cheers SP > On 2019-02-27 13:38, Elsa S wrote: > > Hi Rafik, > > Would it be worthwhile to possibly add discussions with board and how > their priorirties in the upcoming years could affect NCSG? > > I know it?s not of high urgency compared to EPDP Phase 2 discussions, but > I thought it might be good to add under AOB if you all think it?s worth > while. > > Best, > > Elsa > ? > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:05 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We are getting close to Kobe meeting and it is good time to be ready. >> Our NCSG Policy Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday 11th March >> 13:30-15:00. >> As draft agenda: >> 1- Introduction >> 2- GNSO Council meeting agenda >> 3- Policy Update: >> - EPDP next steps >> - Other PDP Working Groups >> 4- AOB. >> >> Nothing original here and we have only 90minute. We can adjust it in >> particular regarding council meeting if there is no expected motion. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing 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: